[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aVe7SP914oI-jAam@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2026 14:34:16 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: raskar.shree97@...il.com
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, skhan@...uxfoundation.org,
david.hunter.linux@...il.com, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] iio: proximity: rfd77402: Add interrupt handling
support
On Thu, Jan 01, 2026 at 09:47:41PM +0530, Shrikant Raskar via B4 Relay wrote:
> Add interrupt handling support to enable event-driven data acquisition
> instead of continuous polling. This improves responsiveness, reduces
> CPU overhead, and supports low-power operation by allowing the system
> to remain idle until an interrupt occurs.
...
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/i2c.h>
> #include <linux/delay.h>
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> +#include <linux/completion.h>
> #include <linux/iopoll.h>
Same comment as per previous patch. Do not add even more misordering, please.
...
> +/**
> + * struct rfd77402_data - device-specific data for the RFD77402 sensor
> + * @client: I2C client handle
> + * @lock: mutex to serialize sensor reads
> + * @completion: completion used for interrupt-driven measurements
> + * @irq_en: indicates whether interrupt mode is enabled
> + */
> struct rfd77402_data {
> struct i2c_client *client;
> - /* Serialize reads from the sensor */
> struct mutex lock;
> + struct completion completion;
> + bool irq_en;
> };
The kernel-doc conversion can be a separate patch, but I'm not insisting.
...
> +static irqreturn_t rfd77402_interrupt_handler(int irq, void *pdata)
> +{
> + struct rfd77402_data *data = pdata;
> + int ret;
> + if (!data || !data->client)
> + return IRQ_NONE;
How is this possible to be non-dead code?
> + ret = i2c_smbus_read_byte_data(data->client, RFD77402_ICSR);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return IRQ_NONE;
> +
> + /* Check if the interrupt is from our device */
> + if (!(ret & RFD77402_ICSR_RESULT))
> + return IRQ_NONE;
> +
> + /* Signal completion of measurement */
> + complete(&data->completion);
> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
...
> +static int rfd77402_wait_for_irq(struct rfd77402_data *data)
> +{
> + int ret;
Missed blank line. Doesn't checkpatch complain?
> + /* As per datasheet, single measurement flow takes 100ms */
Please, be more specific about datasheet, i.e. which Chapter/Section (with its
number and possible name) or Table specifies this.
> + ret = wait_for_completion_timeout(&data->completion,
> + msecs_to_jiffies(100));
> + if (ret == 0)
> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
...
> +static int rfd77402_measure(struct rfd77402_data *data)
> {
> + struct i2c_client *client = data->client;
This (conversion to data instead of client) can be split into a separate
precursor change.a but it seems not a big deal. Up to maintainers.
...
> - /* Poll ICSR until RESULT bit is set */
> - ret = read_poll_timeout(i2c_smbus_read_byte_data, ret,
> - ret & RFD77402_ICSR_RESULT,
> - 10000, /* sleep: 10ms */
> - 100000, /* timeout: 100ms */
> - false,
> - client, RFD77402_ICSR);
> + if (data->irq_en) {
> + /* Re-initialize completion and wait for interrupt */
> + reinit_completion(&data->completion);
> + ret = rfd77402_wait_for_irq(data);
> + } else {
> + /* Poll ICSR until RESULT bit is set */
> + ret = read_poll_timeout(i2c_smbus_read_byte_data, ret,
> + ret & RFD77402_ICSR_RESULT,
> + 10000, /* sleep 10ms */
> + 100000, /* timeout 100ms */
> + false,
> + client, RFD77402_ICSR);
> + }
This is ping-pong type of change. You just introduced it a patch ago. Make sure
you don't remove/modify (too much at least) the lines that were just added.
One of the possible technique to achieve this is to use a helper function.
...
> static int rfd77402_init(struct i2c_client *client)
> {
> + struct iio_dev *indio_dev = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> + struct rfd77402_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
Can't this now take the data as above modified functon?
...
> - mutex_init(&data->lock);
> + ret = devm_mutex_init(&client->dev, &data->lock);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
In my opinion this deserves a separate change.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists