Re: [PATCH 1/4] mfd: twl6030-irq: migrate to IRQ threaded handler

[Grygorii Strashko]

On 07/24/2013 03:50 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > +	if (ret) {
> > > > +		pr_warn("%s: I2C error %d reading PIH ISR\n", __func__, ret);
> > >
> > > Does the user really care which function we're returning from.
> > >
> > > Would it be better if you replace '__func__' with the device name?
> >
> > This module hasn't been converted to the device yet:(
> > (I mean "interrupt-controller").
> > But I'm thinking about it as the next step :) and then It will be
> > absolutely reasonable change to replace pr_*() with dev_*() and
> > remove __func__.
>
> I don't mean anything as compicated as that for 'this' patch. (NB: See my
> comment in subsequent patches about creating a 'struct twl6030' where
> you could store 'struct dev'.) In this patch I mean litterally
> replacing "%s: ", with "tw16030_irq: ". Simples. :)

Ok. I understand it now - will redo.


> > Now, the pointer on "dev" (in our case "twl-core" device) isn't passed
> > in IRQ handler, so It can't be used here.
> >
> > Of course it can be done, but would it make code better?
> > My opinion - no.
>
> > > > +	if (sts.bytes[2] & 0x10)
> > > > +		sts.bytes[2] |= 0x08;
> > > >
> > > > -		for (i = 0; sts.int_sts; sts.int_sts >>= 1, i++) {
> > > > -			local_irq_disable();
> > > > -			if (sts.int_sts & 0x1) {
> > > > -				int module_irq = twl6030_irq_base +
> > > > +	for (i = 0; sts.int_sts; sts.int_sts >>= 1, i++)
> > > > +		if (sts.int_sts & 0x1) {
> > >
> > > I'm a little confused by this. Where does sts.int_sts come from?
> >
> > See my comment above, pls
>
> Okay, that's my fault for not understanding unions properly as I've
> never had to use one, but now I do, thanks.
>
> > > > @@ -437,10 +386,13 @@ int twl6030_exit_irq(void)
> > > >   {
> > > >   	unregister_pm_notifier(&twl6030_irq_pm_notifier_block);
> > > >
> > > > -	if (twl6030_irq_base) {
> > > > +	if (!twl6030_irq_base) {
> > > >   		pr_err("twl6030: can't yet clean up IRQs?\n");
> > > >   		return -ENOSYS;
> > > >   	}
> > > > +
> > > > +	free_irq(twl_irq, NULL);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > If request_threaded_irq() fails, isn't there a chance that
> > > twl6030_irq_base will be allocated, but twl_irq will still be
> > > undefined?
> >
> > Yes. A mess is here (historically:), thanks. Will use twl_irq
> > instead of twl6030_irq_base (I did it, actually, in patch [3]:).
>
> Yes, I saw it. It would be better if you still fixed up this patch to
> be correct though. Even if you break it out and add it as [PATCH 1/x].
ok

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/