From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] pmac_zilog: fix unexpected irq Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:30:06 +1100 Message-ID: <1322440206.23348.35.camel@pasglop> References: <20111023141108.856998818@telegraphics.com.au> <20111023141115.208699274@telegraphics.com.au> <20111124145624.24438832@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:34584 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751466Ab1K1Aac (ORCPT ); Sun, 27 Nov 2011 19:30:32 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Finn Thain Cc: Alan Cox , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Geert Uytterhoeven > Removing ifdefs makes the changes more invasive and the suspend/resume > code then has to be addressed, which I've avoided. > > The suspend/resume code path can't be tested on m68k macs and the common > code paths I can't easily test on a powermac. > > This patch should not be needed because the chip reset shouldn't leave the > tx and rx interrupts enabled. Those interrupts are explicitly enabled only > after request_irq(), so patching the master interrupt enable behaviour > should be redundant. But that's not the case in practice. > > The chip reset code is already messy. I was inclined towards ifdefs and > reluctant to share more code after practical experience suggested possible > differences in the SCC/ESCC devices. > > I guess I was hoping that the powermac maintainers might prefer ifdefs to > increased risk of destabilising the driver on powermacs... > > But a more invasive patch would make for better code. I will see if I can > borrow a suitable PCI PowerMac. Please do the more invasive patch, I'll beat it up on powermacs. Cheers, Ben.