On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 14:29:02 +0200
Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On 23/03/2021 13:12, Jian Dong wrote:
> >> From: Jian Dong <dongjian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Fixes coccicheck error:
> >>
> >> drivers/regulator/mt6360-regulator.c:388:8-33: ERROR:
> >> drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c:781:7-32: ERROR:
> >> drivers/regulator/slg51000-regulator.c:480:8-33: ERROR:
> >> drivers/regulator/qcom-labibb-regulator.c:364:8-33: ERROR:
> >> Threaded IRQ with no primary handler requested without IRQF_ONESHOT
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jian Dong <dongjian@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/regulator/mt6360-regulator.c | 4 ++--
> >> drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c | 2 +-
> >> drivers/regulator/qcom-labibb-regulator.c | 3 ++-
> >> drivers/regulator/slg51000-regulator.c | 4 ++--
> >> 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/mt6360-regulator.c
> >> b/drivers/regulator/mt6360-regulator.c index 15308ee..947350d
> >> 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/mt6360-regulator.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/regulator/mt6360-regulator.c
> >> @@ -385,8 +385,8 @@ static int
> >> mt6360_regulator_irq_register(struct platform_device *pdev, return
> >> irq; }
> >>
> >> - ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, irq,
> >> NULL, irq_desc->handler, 0,
> >> - irq_desc->name,
> >> rdev);
> >> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, irq,
> >> NULL, irq_desc->handler,
> >> + IRQF_ONESHOT,
> >> irq_desc->name, rdev);
> >
> > This does not look like trivial rename/replace fix. This should be
> > tested but it looks that you just did what coccinelle asked for,
> > without testing.
>
> Right, but it must be done. If things work today, they work out of
> sheer luck. Also, which evidence is there that $subject wasn't tested?
>
it just use coccinelle to check again, the warning didn't rise after
modify
> >> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c
> >> b/drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c index 2f7ee21..d4bc1c3
> >> 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/regulator/pca9450-regulator.c
> >> @@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ static int pca9450_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client
> >> *i2c,
> >> ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(pca9450->dev,
> >> pca9450->irq, NULL, pca9450_irq_handler,
> >> - (IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING |
> >> IRQF_ONESHOT),
> >> + IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING |
> >> IRQF_ONESHOT,
> >
> > How this is related to the missing IRQF_ONESHOT?
>
> agreed.
>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/slg51000-regulator.c
> >> b/drivers/regulator/slg51000-regulator.c index 75a941f..3f310ab
> >> 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/slg51000-regulator.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/regulator/slg51000-regulator.c
> >> @@ -479,8 +479,8 @@ static int slg51000_i2c_probe(struct
> >> i2c_client *client) if (chip->chip_irq) {
> >> ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev,
> >> chip->chip_irq, NULL, slg51000_irq_handler,
> >> -
> >> (IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH |
> >> - IRQF_ONESHOT),
> >> + IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH
> >> |
> >> + IRQF_ONESHOT,
> >> "slg51000-irq",
> >> chip);
> >
> > How this is related to the missing IRQF_ONESHOT?
>
> agreed.
>
I thnik it maybe the result of the coccinelle rule. it need to check
value explicit. another wanring like this: define irq_flag
= IRQF_ONESHOT, then reference irq_flag in fuction, it also will trigger
coccinelle warning. it seems not the code error but coccicheck bug.
