Hi Andy, thanks for the review.
On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 13:39 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:01 PM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
> <nsaenzju@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The atlas sensor driver currently registers a threaded IRQ handler whose
> > sole responsibility is to trigger an irq_work which will in turn run
> > iio_trigger_poll() in IRQ context.
> >
> > This seems overkill given the fact that there already was a opportunity
>
> an opportunity
Thanks, noted.
> > @@ -474,7 +465,7 @@ static irqreturn_t atlas_interrupt_handler(int irq, void *private)
> > struct iio_dev *indio_dev = private;
> > struct atlas_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
> >
> > - irq_work_queue(&data->work);
> > + iio_trigger_poll(data->trig);
>
> Have you considered dropping atlas_interrupt_trigger_ops() altogether?
Not really, but it makes sense as a separate patch. I'll take care of it.
>
> > if (client->irq > 0) {
> > /* interrupt pin toggles on new conversion */
> > ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq,
>
> > - NULL, atlas_interrupt_handler,
> > + atlas_interrupt_handler, NULL,
>
> So, you move it from threaded IRQ to be a hard IRQ handler (we have a
> separate call for this).
Noted.
> Can you guarantee that handling of those events will be fast enough?
Do you mean the events triggered in iio_trigger_poll()? If so the amount of
time spent in IRQ context is going to be the same regardless of whether it's
handled through atlas' IRQ or later in irq_work IPI (or softirq context on some
weird platforms).
--
Nicolás Sáenz
