On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 05:34:33PM +0800, Li Jun wrote: > With that we can clear any pending events and the port is registered > so driver can be ready to handle typec events once we request irq. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Chen <peter.chen@xxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Li Jun <jun.li@xxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/staging/typec/tcpci.c | 15 ++++++++------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/typec/tcpci.c b/drivers/staging/typec/tcpci.c > index ba4627f..f5a3bf5 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/typec/tcpci.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/typec/tcpci.c > @@ -600,25 +600,26 @@ static int tcpci_probe(struct i2c_client *client, > if (IS_ERR(chip->data.regmap)) > return PTR_ERR(chip->data.regmap); > > + i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip); > + > /* Disable chip interrupts before requesting irq */ > err = regmap_raw_write(chip->data.regmap, TCPC_ALERT_MASK, &val, > sizeof(u16)); > if (err < 0) > return err; > > + chip->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(&client->dev, &chip->data); > + if (PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(chip->tcpci)) > + return PTR_ERR(chip->tcpci); > + I am concerned that the regitration above might already trigger commands, and that we might miss interrupts if that is the case. Would it make sense to check for chip->tcpci in the interrupt handler instead ? > err = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq, NULL, > _tcpci_irq, > IRQF_ONESHOT | IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW, > dev_name(&client->dev), chip); > if (err < 0) > - return err; > + tcpci_unregister_port(chip->tcpci); > > - chip->tcpci = tcpci_register_port(&client->dev, &chip->data); > - if (PTR_ERR_OR_ZERO(chip->tcpci)) > - return PTR_ERR(chip->tcpci); > - > - i2c_set_clientdata(client, chip); > - return 0; > + return err; > } > > static int tcpci_remove(struct i2c_client *client) > -- > 2.7.4 > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
