On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:40 PM Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
...
> > > > 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?
The thing is that I don't know. I am not familiar with this hardware.
So, you have to investigate and decide.
> 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;
If you are going with this approach, try to handle errors first, i.e.
if (...)
return IRQ_NONE;
...
return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
