[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z-Lcfm6eXMm1QzEl@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2025 18:40:30 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Mathieu Dubois-Briand <mathieu.dubois-briand@...tlin.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Kamel Bouhara <kamel.bouhara@...tlin.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König <ukleinek@...nel.org>,
Michael Walle <mwalle@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
Grégory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/11] mfd: Add max7360 support
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 05:26:12PM +0100, Mathieu Dubois-Briand wrote:
> On Wed Mar 19, 2025 at 12:10 PM CET, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 05:26:18PM +0100, mathieu.dubois-briand@...tlin.com wrote:
> > > From: Kamel Bouhara <kamel.bouhara@...tlin.com>
> > > + ret = max7360_mask_irqs(regmap);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Could not mask interrupts\n");
> >
> > Hmm... As far as I can read this masks GPIO interrups. Does it do anything
> > else? If it's covered by the GPIO/pin control drivers, one want probably to
> > see that to be done there in the respective callback (init_hw_irq or alike,
> > I don't remember the name by heart).
>
> Hum, I'm not sure I can do that.
>
> So the "inti" interrupt line is shared across the GPIO and the rotary
> encoder functionalities.
>
> On reset, GPIO interrupts are not masked. This means, if we do the
> masking in the GPIO driver and the GPIO driver is not loaded but the
> rotary encoder driver is, the rotary encoder driver might get a lot of
> spurious interrupts.
>
> So I believe it makes sense to mask the interrupts here, setting the
> chip in a sane configuration, whatever child drivers are present.
>
> Any thought about that?
Okay, this makes sense. I forgot if you have any comment in the code
(probably not if I asked the question), but in any case the above can
be added on top of the function explaining this.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists