[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200730060601.GE1665100@dtor-ws>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 23:06:01 -0700
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Marco Felsch <m.felsch@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Horia Geantă <horia.geanta@....com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
André Draszik <git@...red.net>,
Robin Gong <yibin.gong@....com>,
Anson Huang <anson.huang@....com>,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Aymen Sghaier <aymen.sghaier@....com>,
Adam Ford <aford173@...il.com>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] Input: snvs_pwrkey - only IRQ_HANDLED for our own
events
Hi Marco,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 09:55:13AM +0200, Marco Felsch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 20-07-23 10:43, Horia Geantă wrote:
> > From: André Draszik <git@...red.net>
> >
> > The snvs_pwrkey shares the SNVS LPSR status register with the snvs_rtc.
> >
> > This driver here should only return IRQ_HANDLED if the status register
> > indicates that the event we're handling in the irq handler was genuinely
> > intended for this driver. Otheriwse the interrupt subsystem will
> > assume the interrupt was handled successfully even though it wasn't
> > at all.
>
> After checking the RM and the imx6qdl.dtsi I'm not very sure that this
> is right since the snvs-powerkey has a seperate irq-line. So we can be
> sure that this irq is for us. If this is the case we don't need to check
> the SNVS_LPSR_REG instead we only need to clear it.
Wouldn't we want to know if for some reason we get spurious interrupts?
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists