Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <5d67e71e.1c69fb81.6f885.6391@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <CAP245DVV=7wfJqQdknoovqarXnHdzZzfhPQCkKxCy+heGrz9Ag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <cover.1566907161.git.amit.kucheria@linaro.org> <a4666f8afa39471658602e06758b04a991f80828.1566907161.git.amit.kucheria@linaro.org> <5d66f545.1c69fb81.3663f.129d@mx.google.com> <CAP245DVV=7wfJqQdknoovqarXnHdzZzfhPQCkKxCy+heGrz9Ag@mail.gmail.com>
Cc:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Eduardo Valentin <edubezval@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>,
        Brian Masney <masneyb@onstation.org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 15/15] drivers: thermal: tsens: Add interrupt support
To:     Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@linaro.org>
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
User-Agent: alot/0.8.1
Date:   Thu, 29 Aug 2019 07:54:21 -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-08-29 05:30:59)
> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 3:12 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Amit Kucheria (2019-08-27 05:14:11)
> > > +                       thermal_zone_device_update(priv->sensor[i].tz=
d,
> > > +                                                  THERMAL_EVENT_UNSP=
ECIFIED);
> > > +               } else {
> > > +                       dev_dbg(priv->dev, "[%u] %s: no violation:  %=
d\n",
> > > +                               hw_id, __func__, temp);
> > > +               }
> > > +       }
> > > +
> > > +       return IRQ_HANDLED;
> >
> > Should we return IRQ_NONE in the case that the above for loop didn't
> > find anything in those if/else-ifs?
>=20
> The upper/lower interrupts are non-sticky, level-triggered. So if the
> temp returns to within the thresholds in the time that a IRQ was
> triggered and the handler scheduled, we might not see any threshold
> violations/interrupt bits set.
>=20
> It feels to me that this is a case of the IRQ being handled
> (automagically) instead of IRQ_NONE. The definition of IRQ_NONE[1]
> also seems to suggest that it should be used when the IRQ wasn't
> handled. But it was handled in this case (although, automatically),
> wasn't it?

Ok I see. Sounds fine then to always return IRQ_HANDLED. Maybe you can
add a comment to this effect right above the return statement.