[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7ca4a22f903313128de5c0f65a49b319@bootlin.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 15:48:20 +0200
From: Kamel BOUHARA <kamel.bouhara@...tlin.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Henrik Rydberg <rydberg@...math.org>, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Marco Felsch
<m.felsch@...gutronix.de>, Jeff LaBundy <jeff@...undy.com>,
catalin.popescu@...ca-geosystems.com, mark.satterthwaite@...chnetix.com,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>, Gregory Clement
<gregory.clement@...tlin.com>, bsp-development.geo@...ca-geosystems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 3/3] Input: Add TouchNetix axiom i2c touchscreen
driver
[...]
>> > +
>> > + error = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, client->irq, NULL,
>> > + axiom_irq, IRQF_ONESHOT, dev_name(dev), ts);
>> > + if (error) {
>> > + dev_info(dev, "Request irq failed, falling back to polling mode");
>>
>> I do not think you should fall back to polling mode if you fail to get
>> interrupt. If it was not specified (client->irq) then I can see that
>> we
>> might want to fall back, but if the system configured for using
>> interrupt and you can not get it you should bail out.
>>
>
> Yes, clear, the polling mode can be decorrelated to the irq not
> provided
> case.
Just to make sure I understood, is this what you propose ?
if (client->irq) {
error = devm_request_threaded_irq(...)
if (error) {
dev_warn(dev, "failed to request IRQ\n");
client->irq = 0;
}
}
if(!client->irq) {
// setup polling stuff
...
}
--
Kamel Bouhara, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists