* pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN
@ 2010-03-08 10:17 Jan Beulich
2010-03-08 19:47 ` Dominik Brodowski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2010-03-08 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux, Andrew Morton, alan; +Cc: linux-kernel
(re-sending to correct Alan's email address)
Commit 635416ef393e8cec5a89fc6c1de710ee9596a51e introduced
this, but I can't see how it can take effect - the argument passed to
request_irq() only affects action->flags (IRQF_*), whereas the flag
in question is a desc->status one (IRQ_*). Am I overlooking
something? If not, while currently this just should not work as expected,
it's latently more significant (as soon as the IRQF_* definitions make
use of the bit used by IRQ_NOAUTOEN).
Thanks, Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN
2010-03-08 10:17 pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN Jan Beulich
@ 2010-03-08 19:47 ` Dominik Brodowski
2010-03-15 17:43 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dominik Brodowski @ 2010-03-08 19:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: Andrew Morton, alan, linux-kernel
Hey,
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:17:11AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> (re-sending to correct Alan's email address)
>
> Commit 635416ef393e8cec5a89fc6c1de710ee9596a51e introduced
> this, but I can't see how it can take effect - the argument passed to
> request_irq() only affects action->flags (IRQF_*), whereas the flag
> in question is a desc->status one (IRQ_*). Am I overlooking
> something? If not, while currently this just should not work as expected,
> it's latently more significant (as soon as the IRQF_* definitions make
> use of the bit used by IRQ_NOAUTOEN).
You're right, it seems to make no sense. Or less than that.
Alan, what do you think?
Best,
Dominik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN
2010-03-08 19:47 ` Dominik Brodowski
@ 2010-03-15 17:43 ` Alan Cox
2010-03-15 18:18 ` Dominik Brodowski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2010-03-15 17:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dominik Brodowski; +Cc: Jan Beulich, Andrew Morton, linux-kernel
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 20:47:57 +0100
Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:17:11AM +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > (re-sending to correct Alan's email address)
> >
> > Commit 635416ef393e8cec5a89fc6c1de710ee9596a51e introduced
> > this, but I can't see how it can take effect - the argument passed
> > to request_irq() only affects action->flags (IRQF_*), whereas the
> > flag in question is a desc->status one (IRQ_*). Am I overlooking
> > something? If not, while currently this just should not work as
> > expected, it's latently more significant (as soon as the IRQF_*
> > definitions make use of the bit used by IRQ_NOAUTOEN).
>
> You're right, it seems to make no sense. Or less than that.
>
> Alan, what do you think?
It should be setting the correct NOAUTOEN bits so that the IRQ isn't
randomly enabled as some hardware then crashes. How it ended up wrong
upstream I don't know as it was tested and fixed the bug, so presumably
the right version got tested or it happened to work back on the old irq
code by luck.
I don't think you are overlooking anything - there is no deep magic
involved.
Alan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN
2010-03-15 17:43 ` Alan Cox
@ 2010-03-15 18:18 ` Dominik Brodowski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dominik Brodowski @ 2010-03-15 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Jan Beulich, Andrew Morton, linux-kernel
Hey,
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 05:43:59PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> > You're right, it seems to make no sense. Or less than that.
> >
> > Alan, what do you think?
>
> It should be setting the correct NOAUTOEN bits so that the IRQ isn't
> randomly enabled as some hardware then crashes. How it ended up wrong
> upstream I don't know as it was tested and fixed the bug, so presumably
> the right version got tested or it happened to work back on the old irq
> code by luck.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/5/127 and then
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/26/485 talk a different language :(
> I don't think you are overlooking anything - there is no deep magic
> involved.
I'll just revert it.
Best,
Dominik
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN
@ 2010-03-08 10:11 Jan Beulich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2010-03-08 10:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux, Andrew Morton, alan; +Cc: linux-kernel
Commit 635416ef393e8cec5a89fc6c1de710ee9596a51e introduced
this, but I can't see how it can take effect - the argument passed to
request_irq() only affects action->flags (IRQF_*), whereas the flag
in question is a desc->status one (IRQ_*). Am I overlooking
something? If not, while currently this just should not work as expected,
it's latently more significant (as soon as the IRQF_* definitions make
use of the bit used by IRQ_NOAUTOEN).
Thanks, Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-03-15 18:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-03-08 10:17 pcmcia's use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN Jan Beulich
2010-03-08 19:47 ` Dominik Brodowski
2010-03-15 17:43 ` Alan Cox
2010-03-15 18:18 ` Dominik Brodowski
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-03-08 10:11 Jan Beulich
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.