Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

From: Marek Vasut

Date: Tue Jan 20 2026 - 21:25:06 EST


On 1/20/26 7:31 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
Hi Marek,

On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:04AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
@@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
* the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
* to do it this way here.
*/
- scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
- dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
-
- ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
-
- error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
-
- ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
-
- dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
+ if (client->irq > 0) {
+ scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
+ error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
+ }

You already have a scope here, no need to establish a new one:

guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);

This part ^ I do not understand. If there is no IRQ defined in DT, I need to call ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() without the guard because I cannot disable_irq() with client->irq < 0, else I need to call ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() within the scoped_guard() to disable IRQs to avoid spurious IRQs that would interfere with the firmware update ?

BTW, not a fan of the "_noirq" suffix... Maybe drop it and add
lockdep_is_held() there?

This part I understand even less, how does lockdep play into this ? The scoped_guard() disables and enables IRQs if they are available.