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
Date:   Tue, 20 Sep 2022 16:25:06 +0200
From:   Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     horatiu.vultur@microchip.com, UNGLinuxDriver@microchip.com,
        andy.shevchenko@gmail.com, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] pinctrl: ocelot: Fix interrupt controller
In-Reply-To: <faa173ddc1d55d2e3931246453e5e953@walle.cc>
References: <20220909145942.844102-1-horatiu.vultur@microchip.com>
 <20220920120642.690340-1-michael@walle.cc>
 <CACRpkdb70zawWDSxUM=hJYkOEbG5a5guZWBytqUmRG2FZLiXsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <faa173ddc1d55d2e3931246453e5e953@walle.cc>
User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.13
Message-ID: <8ec019b32b7221237ccf84fabf07e63d@walle.cc>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
 format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

Am 2022-09-20 14:34, schrieb Michael Walle:
> Am 2022-09-20 14:28, schrieb Linus Walleij:

>> Just checking: since these drivers obviously must pass pass
>> IRQF_SHARED, have you also made sure that each driver also
>> will properly return IRQ_HANDLED if the interrupt was for them
>> (triggered by "their" hardware) but IRQ_NONE if the interrupt was
>> not for them (triggered by something else)?
> 
> Thanks, I'll check it.

The gpy driver seems to handle that correctly. The micrel one introduced
a regression some time ago. I've send a fix in the meantime [1], but it
doesn't help for the multiple interrupts here.

-michael

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20220920141619.808117-1-michael@walle.cc/