On 29/04/19 2:17 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 23/04/2019 11:00, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>
> [...]
>
>>> +/**
>>> + * ti_sci_inta_set_type() - Update the trigger type of the irq.
>>> + * @data: Pointer to corresponding irq_data
>>> + * @type: Trigger type as specified by user
>>> + *
>>> + * Note: This updates the handle_irq callback for level msi.
>>> + *
>>> + * Return 0 if all went well else appropriate error.
>>> + */
>>> +static int ti_sci_inta_set_type(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int type)
>>> +{
>>> + struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(data->irq);
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * .alloc default sets handle_edge_irq. But if the user specifies
>>> + * that IRQ is level MSI, then update the handle to handle_level_irq
>>> + */
>>> + if (type & IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH)
>>> + desc->handle_irq = handle_level_irq;
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>
>>
>> Returning error value is causing request_irq to fail, so still returning 0.
>> Do
>> you suggest any other method to handle this?
>
> But that is the very point, isn't it? If you pass the wrong triggering
> type to request_irq, it *must* fail. What you should have is something like:
>
> switch (type & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK) {
> case IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH:
> desc->handle_irq = handle_level_irq;
> return 0;
> case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
> return 0;
> default:
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> (adjust as necessary).
>
> What's wrong with this?
I get it. Will fix it in next version. I also got the firmware update as well.
If you are okay with rest of the series, I want to post the next version with
the firmware update.
Thanks and regards,
Lokesh
