On 16/04/2021 04:19, zhuguangqing83@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Guangqing Zhu <zhuguangqing83@xxxxxxxxx> > > Coccinelle noticed: > 1. drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c:810:7-32: ERROR: Threaded IRQ with no primary > handler requested without IRQF_ONESHOT > 2. drivers/rtc/rtc-rk808.c:441:7-32: ERROR: Threaded IRQ with no primary > handler requested without IRQF_ONESHOT > 3. drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c:779:7-27: ERROR: Threaded IRQ with no primary > handler requested without IRQF_ONESHOT > 4. drivers/rtc/rtc-tps65910.c:415:7-32: ERROR: Threaded IRQ with no primary > handler requested without IRQF_ONESHOT > 5. drivers/rtc/rtc-lp8788.c:277:8-33: ERROR: Threaded IRQ with no primary > handler requested without IRQF_ONESHOT > 6. drivers/rtc/rtc-max8998.c:283:7-32: ERROR: Threaded IRQ with no primary > handler requested without IRQF_ONESHOT > 7. drivers/rtc/rtc-rc5t583.c:241:7-32: ERROR: Threaded IRQ with no primary > handler requested without IRQF_ONESHOT > 8. drivers/rtc/rtc-max8997.c:495:7-32: ERROR: Threaded IRQ with no primary > handler requested without IRQF_ONESHOT > > Signed-off-by: Guangqing Zhu <zhuguangqing83@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/rtc/rtc-lp8788.c | 2 +- > drivers/rtc/rtc-max77686.c | 4 ++-- > drivers/rtc/rtc-max8997.c | 2 +- > drivers/rtc/rtc-max8998.c | 3 ++- > drivers/rtc/rtc-rc5t583.c | 2 +- > drivers/rtc/rtc-rk808.c | 2 +- > drivers/rtc/rtc-s5m.c | 4 ++-- The commit msg suggests in misleading way that there is an issue here to solve but at least for max* and s5m it is not true. These are nested interrupts. I tested *only* the S5M: Tested-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> but still I wonder - why this change is needed, except satisfying blind Coccinelle runs? Does it really bring benefit for the nested interrupts? Best regards, Krzysztof
