Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 01/10] spmi: pmic-arb: handle spurious interrupt

From: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
To: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>,
	<linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: <collinsd@codeaurora.org>, <subbaram@codeaurora.org>,
	<tglx@linutronix.de>, <maz@kernel.org>,
	Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 01/10] spmi: pmic-arb: handle spurious interrupt
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 20:43:46 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <c6f9beb7-98ec-4a5a-a887-b8841c982b04@quicinc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <829e2ce0-888a-b859-9e94-4b92d6c10d4a@linaro.org>


On 2021/12/2 10:39, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> On 02/12/2021 00:00, Fenglin Wu wrote:
>> Call handle_bad_irq() for handling spurious interrupt. While at it,
>> add an error print in cleanup_irq() for any spurious interrupt which
>> is fired but not having interrupt handler registered.
>
> Being excruciatingly pedantic, I'd suggest breaking this up into two 
> patches, one for the ratelimit one for the logical change to the irq 
> handling flow.
>
The original patch actually only prints a message for any interrupt 
that's fired but not
registered, and it got reviewed and commented to add logic to handle 
spurious interrupt
like this.I might have misunderstood the comments so I combined them 
together, I agreed
theyare not very related and I can separate them and send them again.
Thanks.
>> Signed-off-by: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar<adharmap@codeaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: David Collins<collinsd@codeaurora.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu<quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
>> index bbbd311..da629cc 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c
>> @@ -489,6 +489,8 @@ static void cleanup_irq(struct spmi_pmic_arb 
>> *pmic_arb, u16 apid, int id)
>>       u8 per = ppid & 0xFF;
>>       u8 irq_mask = BIT(id);
>>   +    dev_err_ratelimited(&pmic_arb->spmic->dev, "%s apid=%d 
>> sid=0x%x per=0x%x irq=%d\n",
>> +            __func__, apid, sid, per, id);
>>       writel_relaxed(irq_mask, pmic_arb->ver_ops->irq_clear(pmic_arb, 
>> apid));
>>         if (pmic_arb_write_cmd(pmic_arb->spmic, SPMI_CMD_EXT_WRITEL, 
>> sid,
>> @@ -502,10 +504,10 @@ static void cleanup_irq(struct spmi_pmic_arb 
>> *pmic_arb, u16 apid, int id)
>>                   irq_mask, ppid);
>>   }
>>   -static void periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 
>> apid)
>> +static int periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 apid)
>>   {
>>       unsigned int irq;
>> -    u32 status, id;
>> +    u32 status, id, handled = 0;
>
> If handled were an int
>
>>       u8 sid = (pmic_arb->apid_data[apid].ppid >> 8) & 0xF;
>>       u8 per = pmic_arb->apid_data[apid].ppid & 0xFF;
>>   @@ -520,7 +522,10 @@ static void periph_interrupt(struct 
>> spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 apid)
>>               continue;
>>           }
>>           generic_handle_irq(irq);
>> +        handled++;
>>       }
>> +
>> +    return (handled) ? 0 : -EINVAL;
>>   }
>
> you could "return handled;" and then have
>
> if (periph_interrupt(pmic_arb, apid))
>     handled++;
>
> later on
>
> Its not important I suppose but please do at least break this up into 
> two separate patches.
>
Got it, will update it. Thanks
> ---
> bod