Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220319181023.8090-1-jagathjog1996@gmail.com>
 <20220319181023.8090-4-jagathjog1996@gmail.com> <CAHp75VdB5q+Y2R46OO-kCKCkPY58YzyLNjN3PjJiQhTOgV4n2w@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220321222117.GD10058@jagath-PC> <CAHp75Vdp12bm+CHWun36b36Sui73zh0_wtY5YhEqVdNy4rUxVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220322154047.GA3677@jagath-PC>
In-Reply-To: <20220322154047.GA3677@jagath-PC>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 18:12:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfVzunDL3yTvzDvSPagjRBUCywtr0j82Bk-1atw6EwnmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/5] iio: accel: bma400: Add triggered buffer support
To:     Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@gmail.com>
Cc:     Dan Robertson <dan@dlrobertson.com>,
        Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        linux-iio <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 5:40 PM Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:54:53AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 12:21 AM Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:39:22AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 19, 2022 at 8:10 PM Jagath Jog J <jagathjog1996@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> > > > A useless label. Moreover this raises a question: why is it okay to
> > > > always mark IRQ as handled?
> > > >
> > > > > +       return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > >
> > > Since I was not using top-half of the interrupt so I marked IRQ as handled
> > > even for error case in the handler.
> >
> > Yes, but why? Isn't it an erroneous state? Does it mean spurious
> > interrupt? Does it mean interrupt is unserviced?
>
> Sorry, even for erroneous state I was returning IRQ_HANDLED.
> As shown below, now for erroneous state and spurious interrupt I will return
> IRQ_NONE and for valid interrupt IRQ_HANDLED will be returned.
>
> Is below method is correct?

The thing is that I don't know. I am not familiar with this hardware.
So, you have to investigate and decide.

> static irqreturn_t bma400_interrupt(int irq, void *private)
> {
>        struct iio_dev *indio_dev = private;
>        struct bma400_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>        int ret;
>        __le16 status;
>
>        mutex_lock(&data->mutex);
>        ret = regmap_bulk_read(data->regmap, BMA400_INT_STAT0_REG, &status,
>                               sizeof(status));
>        mutex_unlock(&data->mutex);
>        if (ret)
>                return IRQ_NONE;

>        if (le16_to_cpu(status) & BMA400_INT_DRDY_MSK) {
>                iio_trigger_poll_chained(data->trig);
>                return IRQ_HANDLED;
>         }
>
>         return IRQ_NONE;

If you are going with this approach, try to handle errors first, i.e.

    if (...)
        return IRQ_NONE;
    ...
    return IRQ_HANDLED;

> }

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko