Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 1/9] spmi: pmic-arb: add a print in cleanup_irq
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
CC:     <collinsd@codeaurora.org>, <subbaram@codeaurora.org>,
        Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@codeaurora.org>
References: <1631860384-26608-1-git-send-email-quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
 <1631860384-26608-2-git-send-email-quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
 <163406078422.936959.12726677103787301939@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <6c91a6ad-0ff2-a431-138a-2ec83f2bfa74@quicinc.com>
 <163415372158.936959.16897606198271075227@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
 <e94d4b54-316e-220e-aaec-f60311c37745@quicinc.com>
 <163426014715.936959.6136985763712059359@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
From:   Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com>
Message-ID: <83fa65c8-3442-ee26-22ed-e26b013cca14@quicinc.com>
Date:   Fri, 15 Oct 2021 09:27:55 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <163426014715.936959.6136985763712059359@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


On 10/15/2021 9:09 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-13 19:26:55)
>> On 10/14/2021 3:35 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-12 21:15:42)
>>>> On 10/13/2021 1:46 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>>> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-09-16 23:32:56)
>>>>>> From: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@codeaurora.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The cleanup_irq() was meant to clear and mask interrupts that were
>>>>>> left enabled in the hardware but there was no interrupt handler
>>>>>> registered for it. Add an error print when it gets invoked.
>>>>> Why? Don't we get the genirq spurious irq message in this scenario?
>>>> Thanks for reviewing the change.
>>>>
>>>> No, there is no existing message printed out in this special case ( IRQ
>>>> fired for not registered interrupt).
>>> Ah I see so the irq doesn't have a flow handler? Shouldn't you call
>>> handle_bad_irq() in this case so we get a irq descriptor print?
>> In such case, the irq number is not valid and there won't be a valid
>> irq_desc, hence it's not possible to call handle_bad_irq() here.
> I mean handle_bad_irq() on the irqdesc for the spmi pmic arb chained
> irq. Because things are not good with the chained irq.
Okay, how about this, Update periph_interrupt() function with a return
value, and return -EINVAL once an invalid IRQ is detected. In
pmic_arb_chained_irq(), call handle_bad_irq() if periph_interrupt()
returned -EINVAL.