On 1/25/2023 10:21 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 9:22 AM Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
-void dp_ctrl_isr(struct dp_ctrl *dp_ctrl)
+irqreturn_t dp_ctrl_isr(struct dp_ctrl *dp_ctrl)
{
struct dp_ctrl_private *ctrl;
u32 isr;
+ irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_NONE;
if (!dp_ctrl)
- return;
+ return IRQ_NONE;
ctrl = container_of(dp_ctrl, struct dp_ctrl_private, dp_ctrl);
isr = dp_catalog_ctrl_get_interrupt(ctrl->catalog);
can you add (!isr) check and return IRQ_NONE here to be consistent with
dp_aux_isr()?
I could, though it doesn't really buy us a whole lot in this case and
just adds an extra test that's not needed. Here it should be easy for
someone reading the function to see that if "isr == 0" that neither of
the two "if" statements below will fire and we'll return "IRQ_NONE"
anyway.
...that actually made me go back and wonder whether we still needed
the "if" test in dp_aux_isr() or if it too was also redundant. It
turns out that it's not! The previous patch made dp_aux_irq() detect
unexpected interrupts. Thus the "if (!isr)" test earlier is important
because otherwise we'd end up WARNing "Unexpected interrupt:
0x00000000" which would be confusing.
So unless you or others feel strongly that I should add the redundant
test here, I'd rather keep it off. Let me know.
-Doug
ack
