On 17-07-20, 08:16, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> Hello Vinod,
>
> > From: Vinod Koul, Sent: Friday, July 17, 2020 3:39 PM
> >
> > hello Yoshihiro,
> >
> > On 13-07-20, 21:11, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote:
> >
> > Please consider revising patch subject. It tell me you are fixing an
> > error but it doesnt tell me what this patch is about :)
> >
> > Perhpas :move irq registration to init" maybe a better title which
> > describes the changes this patch brings in
>
> Thank you for your suggestion! I also think your suggestion is better.
> So, I will fix it.
>
> <snip>
> > > @@ -389,12 +390,39 @@ static void rcar_gen3_init_otg(struct
> > > rcar_gen3_chan *ch)
> > > rcar_gen3_device_recognition(ch);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static irqreturn_t rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_irq(int irq, void *_ch)
> > > +{
> > > + struct rcar_gen3_chan *ch = _ch;
> > > + void __iomem *usb2_base = ch->base;
> > > + u32 status = readl(usb2_base + USB2_OBINTSTA);
> > > + irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_NONE;
> > > +
> > > + if (status & USB2_OBINT_BITS) {
> > > + dev_vdbg(ch->dev, "%s: %08x\n", __func__, status);
> > > + writel(USB2_OBINT_BITS, usb2_base + USB2_OBINTSTA);
> > > + rcar_gen3_device_recognition(ch);
> > > + ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > static int rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_init(struct phy *p)
> > > {
> > > struct rcar_gen3_phy *rphy = phy_get_drvdata(p);
> > > struct rcar_gen3_chan *channel = rphy->ch;
> > > void __iomem *usb2_base = channel->base;
> > > u32 val;
> > > + int ret;
> > > +
> > > + if (!rcar_gen3_is_any_rphy_initialized(channel) && channel->irq >= 0) {
> > > + INIT_WORK(&channel->work, rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_work);
> > > + ret = request_irq(channel->irq, rcar_gen3_phy_usb2_irq,
> > > + IRQF_SHARED, dev_name(channel->dev), channel);
> > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > + dev_err(channel->dev, "No irq handler (%d)\n",
> > > + channel->irq);
> >
> > This could be in a single line :)
>
> Yes. We could be 80 over characters in a line now :)
> I'll fix it.
>
> > Should we continue on error here?
>
> Hmm, maybe it's better if the request_irq() failed because
> it can avoid unexpected behaviors. But, original code continued on error.
> In this case, should I make a separated incremental patch to exit on error?
Yes that would be better :), Always, a patch per change
--
~Vinod
