Hello Andy,
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:54:53AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:21 AM Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:39:22AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 8:10 PM Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> First of all, you left many uncommented comments. I assume you agree
> with my comments and are going to address them. If it's not the case,
> please elaborate.
Yes Andy, I agree with your comments and I will address them in the next v2 series.
>
> ...
>
> > > > +out:
> >
> > Just to skip the below "if()" if error occurs in previous regmap read,
> > I used this label.
> > if (status & BMA400_INT_DRDY_MSK)
> > iio_trigger_poll_chained(data->trig);
> >
> > I will remove the label in next patch
>
> Just return directly.
>
> ...
>
> > > A useless label. Moreover this raises a question: why is it okay to
> > > always mark IRQ as handled?
> > >
> > > > + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> >
> > Since I was not using top-half of the interrupt so I marked IRQ as handled
> > even for error case in the handler.
>
> Yes, but why? Isn't it an erroneous state? Does it mean spurious
> interrupt? Does it mean interrupt is unserviced?
Sorry, even for erroneous state I was returning IRQ_HANDLED.
As shown below, now for erroneous state and spurious interrupt I will return
IRQ_NONE and for valid interrupt IRQ_HANDLED will be returned.
Is below method is correct?
static irqreturn_t bma400_interrupt(int irq, void *private)
{
struct iio_dev *indio_dev = private;
struct bma400_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
int ret;
__le16 status;
mutex_lock(&data->mutex);
ret = regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, BMA400_INT_STAT0_REG, &status,
sizeof(status));
mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
if (ret)
return IRQ_NONE;
if (le16_to_cpu(status) & BMA400_INT_DRDY_MSK) {
iio_trigger_poll_chained(data->trig);
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
return IRQ_NONE;
}
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
