Hi Mark, On Thursday 18 July 2013 08:12 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 04:31:58PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 02:18:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: >>> So why do we report that we handled the interrupt then? Shouldn't we at >>> least warn if we're getting spurious IRQs? >> not spurious. OMAP has two sets of IRQ status registers. One is call >> IRQSTATUS$n (n = 0, 1, ...) and IRQSTATUS_RAW$n. >> IRQSTATUS$n will only enable the bits which fired IRQs and aren't >> masked while IRQSTATUS_RAW$n will also enable the bits which are masked. >> I could never come up with a use case where we would need to handle IRQs >> which we decided to mask, but perhaps there might be some cases, I don't >> know. >> Based on that, I believe Sourav is reading IRQSTATUS_RAW$n, then he need >> to clear the masked bits. > That's not the issue - the issue is that if none of the unmasked > interrupts are being asserted we shouldn't be in the interrupt handler > in the first place but the driver silently accepts that and reports that > it handled the interrupt. I believe this is what you hinted at doing..
there is a QSPI_INTR_STATUS_ENABLED_CLEAR register, which indicated the interrupt status. if nothing is set in the above register, I should return IRQ_NONE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ spi-devel-general mailing list spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spi-devel-general
