Re: your mail

Mark Brown
2014-07-09T07:58:19Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1145 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 10:03:32AM +0900, James Ban wrote:

> > > + ret = regmap_read(chip->regmap, DA9211_REG_EVENT_B, &reg_val);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + goto error_i2c;

> > > + if (reg_val & DA9211_E_OV_CURR_A) {

> > > + if (reg_val & DA9211_E_OV_CURR_B) {

> > > + return IRQ_HANDLED;

> > This is buggy - the driver should only return IRQ_HANDLED if it handled the
> > interrupt somehow, otherwise it should return IRQ_NONE and let the interrupt
> > core handle things. This is especially important since the device appears to
> > require that interrupts are explicitly acknoweldged so if something is flagged
> > but not handled the interrupt will just sit constantly asserted.

> Basically all interrupts are masked when the chip wakes up.
> Only two interrupts are unmasked at the start of driver like below.

I know that's the intention but the code should still be written
robustly - something might go wrong somewhere which causes another
interrupt to be enabled, or we might even gain support for shared
threaded interrupts in the interrupt core and someone could then
try to use that in a system.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]