On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 9:26 PM Nuno Sá <noname.nuno@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So, my suspicion was right... We are getting stalled data (which is > obviously not good). AFAIU, when disabling the IRQ, we don't > immediately mask the IRQ and we only do it in the next time an > interrupt (sample) comes which means (I think) we'll process (right > away) that outstanding interrupt next time we enable the IRQ. > Thank you. I understand. > > > > Some research on this also seems to point that we should (need?) > > > > call > > > > irq_clear_status_flags(irq, IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY) when freeing the > > > > IRQ. > > > > I have understood that I need to call irq_clear_status_flags. > > However, > > I cannot find a code to free the IRQ in ad_sigma_delta.c and other > > Sigma-Delta ADC driver source files. So, I would like to implement > > only irq_set_status_flags. > > Well, that's because we are using devm_request_irq() which is a device > managed API. So, I can see two options in here... > > 1) You do not use devm_request_irq() and use request_irq() + > devm_add_action_or_reset() and in your release() function you would > call irq_clear_status_flags() + free_irq(). > > 2) You add a devm_add_action_or_reset() after devm_request_irq() and > your release() function would only clear the flag. But in here we would > likely also have to be careful in the case where devm_request_irq() > fails. So option 2) seems a bit more "ugly". > > I would likely go to option 1) but maybe Jonathan or others have better > ideas. > Thank you very much for letting me know about the API and ideas. I'll try to implement 1).
