lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] mfd: twl6030-irq: migrate to IRQ threaded handler
> >>+	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. :)

> 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].

--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-24 15:21    [W:0.060 / U:4.716 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site