On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:55:39AM +0530, Shubhrajyoti wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 September 2012 03:21 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >> -omap_i2c_isr(int this_irq, void *dev_id)
> >> > +omap_i2c_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >> > {
> >> > struct omap_i2c_dev *dev = dev_id;
> >> > + irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
> > Shouldn't that be IRQ_NONE?
> Actually we are processing it so I thought it to be ok.Are we processing it? There is nothing acknowledged AFAICS. Anyway, we can fix that with a later patch. > Also a similar discussion. > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-June/104422.html I totally agree to the things said there. -- Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
