The interrupt handler here just increments an atomic counter, jumping to
a threaded handler risks missing tachometer pulses and is likely to be
more expensive than the simple atomic increment.

Signed-off-by: John Keeping <jkeeping@inmusicbrands.com>
---
 drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
index d506a5e7e033d..2df294793f6ee 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/pwm-fan.c
@@ -620,8 +620,8 @@ static int pwm_fan_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		if (tach->irq == -EPROBE_DEFER)
 			return tach->irq;
 		if (tach->irq > 0) {
-			ret = devm_request_irq(dev, tach->irq, pulse_handler, 0,
-					       pdev->name, tach);
+			ret = devm_request_irq(dev, tach->irq, pulse_handler,
+					       IRQF_NO_THREAD, pdev->name, tach);
 			if (ret) {
 				dev_err(dev,
 					"Failed to request interrupt: %d\n",
-- 
2.49.0

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025 at 07:03:57PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> The interrupt handler here just increments an atomic counter, jumping to
> a threaded handler risks missing tachometer pulses and is likely to be
> more expensive than the simple atomic increment.
> 
> Signed-off-by: John Keeping <jkeeping@inmusicbrands.com>

Applied.

Thanks,
Guenter