From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ey-out-2122.google.com (ey-out-2122.google.com [74.125.78.27]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F762DE04A for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2009 03:15:32 +1100 (EST) Received: by ey-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id d26so75867eyd.15 for ; Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:15:30 -0800 (PST) Sender: Peter Korsgaard To: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH] fsldma: print correct IRQ on mpc83xx References: <1231944284-18296-1-git-send-email-jacmet@sunsite.dk> <496E0E85.7060801@freescale.com> From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:15:28 +0100 In-Reply-To: <496E0E85.7060801@freescale.com> (Timur Tabi's message of "Wed\, 14 Jan 2009 10\:10\:45 -0600") Message-ID: <87iqohc19b.fsf@macbook.be.48ers.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> "Timur" == Timur Tabi writes: Timur> Peter Korsgaard wrote: >> @@ -875,7 +875,8 @@ static int __devinit fsl_dma_chan_probe(struct fsl_dma_device *fdev, >> } >> >> dev_info(fdev->dev, "#%d (%s), irq %d\n", new_fsl_chan->id, >> - compatible, new_fsl_chan->irq); >> + compatible, >> + new_fsl_chan->irq != NO_IRQ ? new_fsl_chan->irq : fdev->irq); Timur> Wouldn't it be better to make sure that, on 83xx, Timur> new_fsl_chan->irq has the same value as fdev->irq before we Timur> get here? Why? Does it buy us anything to request_irq again for each channel? Now we're at it, it seems like there's a check for != NO_IRQ missing in fsl_dma_chan_remove(). -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard