On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 04:48:56PM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > otherwise we could get our IRQ line disabled due > > to many spurious IRQs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c > > index fc5b8bc..5b78a73 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c > > @@ -1015,7 +1015,7 @@ omap_i2c_isr(int this_irq, void *dev_id) > > } > > } while (stat); > > > > - return count ? IRQ_HANDLED : IRQ_NONE; > > + return IRQ_HANDLED; > > no sure if this is correct. if you have IRQ flood and instead of _actually_ > handling it, if you return handled, you still have interrupt pending, right? The point of returning IRQ_NONE is to indicate to the interrupt layer that the interrupt you received was not processed by any interrupt handler, and therefore to provide a way of preventing the system being brought to a halt though a stuck interrupt line. So, if you do process an interrupt, you should always return IRQ_HANDLED even if you couldn't complete its processing (eg, because you've serviced it 100 times.) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
