On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 07:30:19AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote: > Greg, > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Kevin Hilman <khil...@linaro.org> wrote: > > +Felipe > > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Alexander Savchenko > > <oleksandr.savche...@ti.com> wrote: > >> From: Ruchika Kharwar <ruch...@ti.com> > >> > >> Ensure the Interrupt handling routine return IRQ_HANDLED vs > >> IRQ_NONE. > > > > Why? > > > > By unconditionally returning IRQ_HANDLED, this patch will surely break > > systems where the UART IRQ is shared with other platforms. > > > > I just noticed this patch when bisecting a related problem. Why > > wasn't this Cc'd to linux-omap where OMAP users might have been more > > likely to see it? > > > > Greg, without a better justification in the changelog, I think this > > patch should be dropped from tty-next. > > Can you drop this from tty-next please? > > The authors aren't responding (one of the ti.com addresses bounced) > and this "fix" is most is not correct.
Yes, sorry, behind on my pending tty patch queue. I'll try to get to it this week. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
