Hi,
On 2025. 02. 07. 9:12, Dharma.B@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
can we have macros for the channel (3rd argument) for better clarity?
I myself have also thought about that, even about adding an uapi header.
Thoughts?
+static int mchp_tc_irq_enable(struct counter_device *const counter)
Can we have it as mchp_tc_irq_init ?
Why, what's wrong with the current name? It requests IRQ servicing from
Linux, then writes the peripheral's Interrupt Enable Register.
+{
+ struct mchp_tc_data *const priv = counter_priv(counter);
+ int ret = devm_request_irq(counter->parent, priv->irq, mchp_tc_isr, 0,
+ dev_name(counter->parent), counter);
+
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
+ ret = regmap_write(priv->regmap, ATMEL_TC_REG(priv->channel[0], IER), ATMEL_TC_DEF_IRQS);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
+ ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(counter->parent, mchp_tc_irq_remove, priv);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
static void mchp_tc_clk_remove(void *ptr)
{
clk_disable_unprepare((struct clk *)ptr);
@@ -378,6 +438,13 @@ static int mchp_tc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
counter->num_signals = ARRAY_SIZE(mchp_tc_count_signals);
counter->signals = mchp_tc_count_signals;
+ priv->irq = of_irq_get(np->parent, 0);
+ if (priv->irq > 0) {
+ ret = mchp_tc_irq_enable(counter);
missing error handling in irq retrieval (check for -EPROBE_DEFER).
Hmm, what should happen on `priv->irq == -EPROBE_DEFER`? `return
-EPROBE_DEFER`?
Bence
