>-----Original Message----- >From: Menon, Nishanth >Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 9:46 AM >To: [email protected] >Cc: Pandita, Vikram; [email protected] >Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] Serial: Define IRQ flags for 8250 driver > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Felipe Balbi [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 1:38 AM >> To: Menon, Nishanth >> Cc: Pandita, Vikram; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Serial: Define IRQ flags for 8250 driver >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:46:37AM +0200, ext Menon, Nishanth wrote: >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: [email protected] [mailto:linux-omap- >> > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Pandita, Vikram >> > > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:50 PM >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > Cc: Pandita, Vikram >> > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Serial: Define IRQ flags for 8250 driver >> > > >> > > >> > > + /* Get IRQ Trigger Flag */ >> > > + if (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_RISING) >> > > + irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING; >> > > + else if (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_FALLING) >> > > + irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING; >> > > + else if (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_HIGH) >> > > + irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH; >> > > + else if (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_LOW) >> > > + irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW; >> > > + >> > Blame it on my dislike for nested if elseif, but... >> > irq_flags |= >> > (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_RISING)? IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING : >> > (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_FALLING)? IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING : >> > (up->port.flags & IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH)? IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH : >> > (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_LOW)? IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW : 0; >> > >> > Makes sense? >> >> switch (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK) { >> case UPF_IRQ_TRIG_RISING: >> irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING; >> break; >> case UPF_IRQ_TRIG_FALLING: >> irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING; >> break; >> case UPF_IRQ_TRIG_HIGH: >> irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH; >> break; >> case UPF_IRQ_TRIG_LOW: >> irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW; >> break; >> default: >> printk(KERN_ERR "Unsupported flag\n"); >> return -EINVAL; >> } >> >Better :) infact, if the port.flags = UPF_IRQ_TRIG_LOW | UPF_IRQ_TRIG_HIGH it >might be better to >return -EINVAL, which Felipe's change does :).
Needs more investigation as to how current boards using 8250 driver do not pass any flag (maybe just SHARED flag) and they still work. Maybe some default taken by request_irq() In short NO_ need to return failure as no flag is a valid use case. > >Regards, >Nishanth Menon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
