Thank you, Linus. No, I have no users. It's only a prototype, using a touchscreen. I think it has to be redesigned using chipset interrupt controller's pin instead of the expander to speed-up, although I don't feel touch gets slower. I spoke about hypothetical users who may use the expander as an interrupt controller at rates comparable to mcp23s08_irq() execution time, and may get less interrupts per second. Kind regards, Dmitry On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 12:10 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 9:36 PM Dmitry Mastykin <mastichi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I made more tests and think that this patch shouldn't be applied. > > It removes duplicated interrupts, but sometimes they increase the performance: > > a new interrupt may come during handling a spurious one, and spurious one will > > become valid (it's kind of a polling). I see the number of my touchscreen > > interrupts reduced from 200 to 130 per second with this patch. It may be a bigger > > problem for users, than duplicated interrupts. Sorry. > > Don't be sorry about that, we code and learn by our mistakes. > > So is this patch causing any regression for users? Like touch > events being slow to react? Also the expander could be used > for other things than touchscreens. If it's not causing any regression > for users it seems like a reasonable patch. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij