On 2021/12/2 10:39, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
On 02/12/2021 00:00, Fenglin Wu wrote:
Call handle_bad_irq() for handling spurious interrupt. While at it,
add an error print in cleanup_irq() for any spurious interrupt which
is fired but not having interrupt handler registered.
Being excruciatingly pedantic, I'd suggest breaking this up into two
patches, one for the ratelimit one for the logical change to the irq
handling flow.
The original patch actually only prints a message for any interrupt
that's fired but not
registered, and it got reviewed and commented to add logic to handle
spurious interrupt
like this.I might have misunderstood the comments so I combined them
together, I agreed
theyare not very related and I can separate them and send them again.
Thanks.
Signed-off-by: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar<adharmap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David Collins<collinsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu<quic_fenglinw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
index bbbd311..da629cc 100644
--- a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
+++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
@@ -489,6 +489,8 @@ static void cleanup_irq(struct spmi_pmic_arb
*pmic_arb, u16 apid, int id)
u8 per = ppid & 0xFF;
u8 irq_mask = BIT(id);
+ dev_err_ratelimited(&pmic_arb->spmic->dev, "%s apid=%d
sid=0x%x per=0x%x irq=%d\n",
+ __func__, apid, sid, per, id);
writel_relaxed(irq_mask, pmic_arb->ver_ops->irq_clear(pmic_arb,
apid));
if (pmic_arb_write_cmd(pmic_arb->spmic, SPMI_CMD_EXT_WRITEL,
sid,
@@ -502,10 +504,10 @@ static void cleanup_irq(struct spmi_pmic_arb
*pmic_arb, u16 apid, int id)
irq_mask, ppid);
}
-static void periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16
apid)
+static int periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 apid)
{
unsigned int irq;
- u32 status, id;
+ u32 status, id, handled = 0;
If handled were an int
u8 sid = (pmic_arb->apid_data[apid].ppid >> 8) & 0xF;
u8 per = pmic_arb->apid_data[apid].ppid & 0xFF;
@@ -520,7 +522,10 @@ static void periph_interrupt(struct
spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 apid)
continue;
}
generic_handle_irq(irq);
+ handled++;
}
+
+ return (handled) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
}
you could "return handled;" and then have
if (periph_interrupt(pmic_arb, apid))
handled++;
later on
Its not important I suppose but please do at least break this up into
two separate patches.
Got it, will update it. Thanks
---
bod
