[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <342f2c09-87a8-571e-e032-d954de4cf2fc@canonical.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 11:13:49 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To: zhuguangqing83@...il.com, Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: Fix missing IRQF_ONESHOT as only threaded handler
On 16/04/2021 04:19, zhuguangqing83@...il.com wrote:
> From: Guangqing Zhu <zhuguangqing83@...il.com>
>
> 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@...il.com>
> ---
> 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@...onical.com>
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists