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

From: Marek Vasut

Date: Wed Jan 21 2026 - 18:23:01 EST


On 1/21/26 11:53 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 11:42:55PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 1/21/26 6:23 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 11:50:53PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
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 ?

You do not need to use scoped_guard() because you already define a scope
in your if statement:

if (client->irq > 0) {
guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
} else {
error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
}

This is sill a bit awkward. Maybe we could add to interrupt.h

Let me do the part above in V5 , and then the part below as a separate
follow up patch/series. I already added the later in tree so it won't be
lost. Does that work for you ?

It does, thanks.
OK, V5 is out, the disable_valid_interrupt guard part is coming shortly.