Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755746Ab2FNLZk (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:25:40 -0400 Received: from na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.69]:42863 "EHLO na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753218Ab2FNLZi convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:25:38 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20120614112323.GD31187@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1339669250-9183-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> <1339669250-9183-16-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> <20120614112323.GD31187@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> From: "Shilimkar, Santosh" Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 16:55:16 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/17] i2c: omap: always return IRQ_HANDLED To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Felipe Balbi , Tony Lindgren , w.sang@pengutronix.de, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, Linux OMAP Mailing List , Linux ARM Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1793 Lines: 43 On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 04:48:56PM +0530, Shilimkar, Santosh wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> > otherwise we could get our IRQ line disabled due >> > to many spurious IRQs. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi >> > --- >> > ?drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c | ? ?2 +- >> > ?1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c >> > index fc5b8bc..5b78a73 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c >> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-omap.c >> > @@ -1015,7 +1015,7 @@ omap_i2c_isr(int this_irq, void *dev_id) >> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?} >> > ? ? ? ?} while (stat); >> > >> > - ? ? ? return count ? IRQ_HANDLED : IRQ_NONE; >> > + ? ? ? return IRQ_HANDLED; >> >> no sure if this is correct. if you have IRQ flood and instead of _actually_ >> handling it, if you return handled, you still have interrupt pending, right? > > The point of returning IRQ_NONE is to indicate to the interrupt layer that > the interrupt you received was not processed by any interrupt handler, and > therefore to provide a way of preventing the system being brought to a halt > though a stuck interrupt line. > > So, if you do process an interrupt, you should always return IRQ_HANDLED > even if you couldn't complete its processing (eg, because you've serviced > it 100 times.) That make sense. Thanks for explanation Russell. Regards santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/