[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WHH5=NZPWSyu6P0HVMpSJK_53=S6PgyjJZCKz8-dE1rg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2023 10:21:57 -0800
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com>
Cc: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@...cinc.com>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
Sankeerth Billakanti <quic_sbillaka@...cinc.com>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Thomas Zimmermann <tzimmermann@...e.de>,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/msm/dp: Return IRQ_NONE for unhandled interrupts
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 9:22 AM Kuogee Hsieh <quic_khsieh@...cinc.com> wrote:
>
> > -void dp_ctrl_isr(struct dp_ctrl *dp_ctrl)
> > +irqreturn_t dp_ctrl_isr(struct dp_ctrl *dp_ctrl)
> > {
> > struct dp_ctrl_private *ctrl;
> > u32 isr;
> > + irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_NONE;
> >
> > if (!dp_ctrl)
> > - return;
> > + return IRQ_NONE;
> >
> > ctrl = container_of(dp_ctrl, struct dp_ctrl_private, dp_ctrl);
> >
> > isr = dp_catalog_ctrl_get_interrupt(ctrl->catalog);
> can you add (!isr) check and return IRQ_NONE here to be consistent with
> dp_aux_isr()?
I could, though it doesn't really buy us a whole lot in this case and
just adds an extra test that's not needed. Here it should be easy for
someone reading the function to see that if "isr == 0" that neither of
the two "if" statements below will fire and we'll return "IRQ_NONE"
anyway.
...that actually made me go back and wonder whether we still needed
the "if" test in dp_aux_isr() or if it too was also redundant. It
turns out that it's not! The previous patch made dp_aux_irq() detect
unexpected interrupts. Thus the "if (!isr)" test earlier is important
because otherwise we'd end up WARNing "Unexpected interrupt:
0x00000000" which would be confusing.
So unless you or others feel strongly that I should add the redundant
test here, I'd rather keep it off. Let me know.
-Doug
Powered by blists - more mailing lists