On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 12:56:31PM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2014, Charles Keepax wrote:
> > static struct irq_chip arizona_irq_chip = {
> > .name = "arizona",
> > - .irq_disable = arizona_irq_disable,
> > - .irq_enable = arizona_irq_enable,
> > + .irq_disable = arizona_irq_dummy,
> > + .irq_enable = arizona_irq_dummy,
> > + .irq_ack = arizona_irq_dummy,
> > + .irq_mask = arizona_irq_dummy,
> > + .irq_unmask = arizona_irq_dummy,
>
> If you provide .irq_enable(), then .irq_unmask becomes redundant
> and/or is checked for before invoking. There is a chance of
> .irq_mask() being called, but if this is a problem, it should be fixed
> in the IRQ Chip code. There is also one unprotected invocation of
> .irq_ack(), but I think this should be fixed rather than forcing each
> user of IRQ Chip to provide all of these call-backs.
Cool I will look at doing some fixups in the IRQ code and see
where that gets me to.
Thanks,
Charles
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
