2015-06-11 10:30:45

by Abdul, Hussain (H.)

Subject: [PATCH] staging: ste_rmi4: Add IRQF_ONESHOT flag

This patch add IRQF_ONESHOT flag in threaded IRQs request without a primary handler.

Signed-off-by: Abdul Hussain <[email protected]>
---
drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
index 0f524bb..7caaae0 100644
--- a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
+++ b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
@@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ static int synaptics_rmi4_probe
rmi4_data->number_of_interrupt_register);
retval = request_threaded_irq(client->irq, NULL,
synaptics_rmi4_irq,
- platformdata->irq_type,
+ platformdata->irq_type | IRQF_ONESHOT,
DRIVER_NAME, rmi4_data);
if (retval) {
dev_err(&client->dev, "Unable to get attn irq %d\n",
--
1.9.1

2015-06-11 14:36:43

by Greg Kroah-Hartman

Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: ste_rmi4: Add IRQF_ONESHOT flag

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Abdul, Hussain (H.) wrote:
> This patch add IRQF_ONESHOT flag in threaded IRQs request without a primary handler.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abdul Hussain <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> index 0f524bb..7caaae0 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> @@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ static int synaptics_rmi4_probe
> rmi4_data->number_of_interrupt_register);
> retval = request_threaded_irq(client->irq, NULL,
> synaptics_rmi4_irq,
> - platformdata->irq_type,
> + platformdata->irq_type | IRQF_ONESHOT,
> DRIVER_NAME, rmi4_data);
> if (retval) {
> dev_err(&client->dev, "Unable to get attn irq %d\n",

Have you tested this? This changes the behavior of the code, right?

2015-06-12 06:47:30

by Abdul, Hussain (H.)

Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: ste_rmi4: Add IRQF_ONESHOT flag

On Thursday 11 June 2015 08:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Abdul, Hussain (H.) wrote:
>> This patch add IRQF_ONESHOT flag in threaded IRQs request without a primary handler.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Abdul Hussain <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
>> index 0f524bb..7caaae0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
>> @@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ static int synaptics_rmi4_probe
>> rmi4_data->number_of_interrupt_register);
>> retval = request_threaded_irq(client->irq, NULL,
>> synaptics_rmi4_irq,
>> - platformdata->irq_type,
>> + platformdata->irq_type | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>> DRIVER_NAME, rmi4_data);
>> if (retval) {
>> dev_err(&client->dev, "Unable to get attn irq %d\n",
> Have you tested this? This changes the behavior of the code, right?
>
Greg,

I haven't tested this changes. Yes, this will change the behavior of the code.

Thanks
Abdul

2015-06-12 15:36:54

by Greg Kroah-Hartman

Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: ste_rmi4: Add IRQF_ONESHOT flag

On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 06:47:25AM +0000, Abdul, Hussain (H.) wrote:
> On Thursday 11 June 2015 08:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:14:49AM +0000, Abdul, Hussain (H.) wrote:
> >> This patch add IRQF_ONESHOT flag in threaded IRQs request without a primary handler.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Abdul Hussain <[email protected]>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> >> index 0f524bb..7caaae0 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/staging/ste_rmi4/synaptics_i2c_rmi4.c
> >> @@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ static int synaptics_rmi4_probe
> >> rmi4_data->number_of_interrupt_register);
> >> retval = request_threaded_irq(client->irq, NULL,
> >> synaptics_rmi4_irq,
> >> - platformdata->irq_type,
> >> + platformdata->irq_type | IRQF_ONESHOT,
> >> DRIVER_NAME, rmi4_data);
> >> if (retval) {
> >> dev_err(&client->dev, "Unable to get attn irq %d\n",
> > Have you tested this? This changes the behavior of the code, right?
> >
> Greg,
>
> I haven't tested this changes. Yes, this will change the behavior of the code.

Then I can't accept this, sorry. Why would you make a behavior change
without testing something?

greg k-h