Re: [PATCH 12/14] iio: pressure: mprls0025pa: fix interrupt flag

[Petre Rodan <petre.rodan@subdimension.ro>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2277 bytes --]


hello Jonathan,

On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 06:38:26PM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2025 13:05:54 +0200
> Petre Rodan <petre.rodan@subdimension.ro> wrote:
> 
> > Interrupt falling/rising flags should only be defined in the device tree.
> > 
> > Fixes: 713337d9143e ("iio: pressure: Honeywell mprls0025pa pressure sensor")
> > Signed-off-by: Petre Rodan <petre.rodan@subdimension.ro>
> Gah. We shoudn't have let this slip through in 2023.
> Some old drivers have done this for many years and for those we definitely
> can't be sure there aren't boards with it set wrong in DT that will see
> a regression with this fix.
> 
> For a 2023 driver, maybe we can gamble that no one has broken DT (where this
> would annoyingly be a regression).  One other question below.
> 
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/iio/pressure/mprls0025pa.c | 5 ++---
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/pressure/mprls0025pa.c b/drivers/iio/pressure/mprls0025pa.c
> > index 243a5717b88f..fc04988b9437 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/pressure/mprls0025pa.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/pressure/mprls0025pa.c
> > @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> >  #include <linux/bits.h>
> >  #include <linux/delay.h>
> >  #include <linux/errno.h>
> > +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> >  #include <linux/math64.h>
> >  #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h>
> >  #include <linux/module.h>
> > @@ -404,9 +405,7 @@ int mpr_common_probe(struct device *dev, const struct mpr_ops *ops, int irq)
> >  
> >  	if (data->irq > 0) {
> >  		ret = devm_request_irq(dev, data->irq, mpr_eoc_handler,
> > -				       IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING,
> > -				       dev_name(dev),
> > -				       data);
> > +				       IRQF_ONESHOT, dev_name(dev), data);
> IRQF_ONESHOT addition here needs a separate explanation. Might well be correct
> but it's not related to your patch description.

do you feel like IRQF_TRIGGER_NONE would be a better fit?

I used ONESHOT just because it seemed like a good idea to isolate the sensor while the handler is running (if I understand the documentation correctly).

best regards,
peter

> 
> >  		if (ret)
> >  			return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
> >  					  "request irq %d failed\n", data->irq);
> > 
> 

-- 
petre rodan

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]