Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] counter: 104-quad-8: Add IRQ support for the ACCES 104-QUAD-8

[David Lechner]

On 9/26/20 9:18 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> +static irqreturn_t quad8_irq_handler(int irq, void *quad8iio)
> +{
> +	struct quad8_iio *const priv = quad8iio;
> +	const unsigned long base = priv->base;
> +	unsigned long irq_status;
> +	unsigned long channel;
> +	u8 event;
> +	int err;
> +
> +	irq_status = inb(base + QUAD8_REG_INTERRUPT_STATUS);
> +	if (!irq_status)
> +		return IRQ_NONE;
> +
> +	for_each_set_bit(channel, &irq_status, QUAD8_NUM_COUNTERS) {
> +		switch (priv->irq_trigger[channel]) {
> +		case 0:
> +			event = COUNTER_EVENT_OVERFLOW;
> +				break;
> +		case 1:
> +			event = COUNTER_EVENT_THRESHOLD;
> +				break;
> +		case 2:
> +			event = COUNTER_EVENT_OVERFLOW_UNDERFLOW;
> +				break;
> +		case 3:
> +			event = COUNTER_EVENT_INDEX;
> +				break;
> +		default:
> +			/* We should never reach here */
> +			return -EINVAL;

This is not a valid return value for an IRQ handler. Maybe WARN_ONCE instead?

> +		}
> +		err = counter_push_event(&priv->counter, event, channel);
> +		if (err)
> +			return err;

Same here. Otherwise, I think we could end up with interrupts in an endless
loop since the interrupt would never be cleared.

> +	}
> +
> +	/* Clear pending interrupts on device */
> +	outb(QUAD8_CHAN_OP_ENABLE_INTERRUPT_FUNC, base + QUAD8_REG_CHAN_OP);
> +
> +	return IRQ_HANDLED;
> +}
> +