Re: [PATCH 2/2] mrst_max3110: fix SPI UART interrupt parameters

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1544 bytes --]

Hi again,

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 01:21:43PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:10:48AM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
> > >My idea is always use threaded irq and passing flags into request.
> > >Like as:
> > >unsigned long flags = res->flags & IORESOURCE_BITS;
> > >...
> > >request_threaded_irq(max->irq, serial_m3110_irq, IRQF_ONESHOT | flags, "max3110", max);
> > 
> > 
> > Oh, maybe we were talking about different things afterall :)
> > The reason this struct plat_max3110 was created is to allow platform
> > code (located under arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/) to define
> > the irq edge type.
> > When I saw your comment I though you were referring to struct resource
> > (which has IORESOURCE_IRQ_* flags). But unlike platform_device,
> > spi_device has no struct resource * to replace the need of struct
> > plat_max3110.
> > 
> > OTOH your suggestion can replace this piece of code:
> > 
> > @@ -68,6 +69,7 @@ struct uart_max3110 {
> >         u8 clock;
> >         u8 parity, word_7bits;
> >         u16 irq;
> > +       u16 irq_edge_triggered;
> 
> max3110 is already edge triggered:
> 
> 495                 ret = request_irq(max->irq, serial_m3110_irq,
> 496                                 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING, "max3110", max);
> 
> it would be nice a threaded IRQ instead of using a singlethread
> workqueue, though.

making it clearer, you only converted to threaded IRQ when
edge_triggered isn't set, why don't you *always* use threaded IRQs ?

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]