> > Workqueue updates for the Atari EtherNEC driver (does this make sense?)
>
> These changes yes, but while I looked at the driver I noticed a few other
> things.
I'm not sure whether this could introduce more delays - OTOH the work
queue is just a fallback in case I cannot get a timer interrupt.
> > @@ -222,7 +223,7 @@ static int use_poll;
> > */
> > static wait_queue_head_t WaitQ;
> >
> > -static struct work_struct tqueue;
> > +static struct delayed_work tqueue;
> >
> > #ifdef ETHERNEC_USE_POLL
> > static struct {
>
> Within ETHERNEC_USE_POLL is another work_struct, which is basically
> another delayed work event also calling basically ei_interrupt. Two worker
> doing the same thing?
Right - that could in fact use the same work_struct if I can make sure
they don't step on each other's toes. Or the ETHERNEC_USE_POLL stuff can
just disappear.
> It also would be nice if the driver could be converted to
> module_init/module_exit before it gets merged.
Remotely related - does any m68k driver use the driver model framework
yet? Where would we plug in the initialization of hardware data?
Michael
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
