Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] Input: ili210x - add support for polling mode

[Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@mailbox.org>]

On 1/20/26 7:31 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> Hi Marek,
> 
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 01:12:04AM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
>> @@ -860,16 +893,12 @@ static ssize_t ili210x_firmware_update_store(struct device *dev,
>>   	 * the touch controller to disable the IRQs during update, so we have
>>   	 * to do it this way here.
>>   	 */
>> -	scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
>> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update started, firmware=%s\n", fwname);
>> -
>> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
>> -
>> -		error = ili210x_do_firmware_update(priv, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>> -
>> -		ili210x_hardware_reset(priv->reset_gpio);
>> -
>> -		dev_dbg(dev, "Firmware update ended, error=%i\n", error);
>> +	if (client->irq > 0) {
>> +		scoped_guard(disable_irq, &client->irq) {
>> +			error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);
>> +		}
> 
> You already have a scope here, no need to establish a new one:
> 
> 		guard(disable_irq)(&client->irq);
> 		error = ili210x_firmware_update_noirq(dev, fwbuf, ac_end, df_end);

This part ^ I do not understand. If there is no IRQ defined in DT, I 
need to call ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() without the guard because I 
cannot disable_irq() with client->irq < 0, else I need to call 
ili210x_firmware_update_noirq() within the scoped_guard() to disable 
IRQs to avoid spurious IRQs that would interfere with the firmware update ?

> BTW, not a fan of the "_noirq" suffix... Maybe drop it and add
> lockdep_is_held() there?

This part I understand even less, how does lockdep play into this ? The 
scoped_guard() disables and enables IRQs if they are available.