On 12/15/2022 1:15 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On 15/12/2022 22:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2022-12-15 10:46:42)
On 15/12/2022 20:32, Kuogee Hsieh wrote:
if (!aux->cmd_busy)
return;
if (aux->native)
- dp_aux_native_handler(aux, isr);
+ ret = dp_aux_native_handler(aux, isr);
else
- dp_aux_i2c_handler(aux, isr);
+ ret = dp_aux_i2c_handler(aux, isr);
- complete(&aux->comp);
+ if (ret == IRQ_HANDLED)
+ complete(&aux->comp);
Can you just move the complete() into the individual handling functions?
Then you won't have to return the error code from dp_aux_*_handler() at
all. You can check `isr' in that function and call complete if there was
any error.
I'd prefer we apply my patch and pass the irqreturn_t variable to the
caller of this function so spurious irqs are shutdown. Should I send it
as a proper patch?
I'm for handling the spurious IRQs in a proper way. However I believe
that it's not related to the issue Kuogee is trying to fix.
Thus I think we should have two separate patches: one fixing the EDID
corruption issue (for which the proper fix is !isr check, IIUC) and the
irqreturn_t. And for the irqreturn_t it might be beneficial to move
complete() call to the dp_aux_foo_handler(). Or might be not. That would
depend on the patch itself.
Ack.
