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

[Fenglin Wu]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: David Collins<collinsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu<quic_fenglinw@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >   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