From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:23:23 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 15/17] i2c: omap: always return IRQ_HANDLED In-Reply-To: References: <1339669250-9183-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> <1339669250-9183-16-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> Message-ID: <20120614112323.GD31187@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 04:48:56PM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > otherwise we could get our IRQ line disabled due > > to many spurious IRQs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi > > --- > > ?drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c | ? ?2 +- > > ?1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c > > index fc5b8bc..5b78a73 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c > > @@ -1015,7 +1015,7 @@ omap_i2c_isr(int this_irq, void *dev_id) > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?} > > ? ? ? ?} while (stat); > > > > - ? ? ? return count ? IRQ_HANDLED : IRQ_NONE; > > + ? ? ? return IRQ_HANDLED; > > no sure if this is correct. if you have IRQ flood and instead of _actually_ > handling it, if you return handled, you still have interrupt pending, right? The point of returning IRQ_NONE is to indicate to the interrupt layer that the interrupt you received was not processed by any interrupt handler, and therefore to provide a way of preventing the system being brought to a halt though a stuck interrupt line. So, if you do process an interrupt, you should always return IRQ_HANDLED even if you couldn't complete its processing (eg, because you've serviced it 100 times.)