On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:38:11AM +0530, Shubhrajyoti Datta wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> static int xiic_bus_busy(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>> >> @@ -602,16 +601,21 @@ static void xiic_start_send(struct xiic_i2c *i2c)
>> >> static irqreturn_t xiic_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> >> {
>> >> struct xiic_i2c *i2c = dev_id;
>> >> -
>> >> - spin_lock(&i2c->lock);
>> >> + u32 pend, isr, ier;
>> >> + irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
>> >> + /* Do not processes a devices interrupts if the device has no
>> >> + * interrupts pending
>> >> + */
>> >
>> > Shouldn't you init 'ret' to IRQ_NONE then?
>> >
>>
>> Indeed I missed it.
>
> Can you test this change on HW and report back?
I have tested it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Wolfram
>
--
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
