[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E689E9A.8000407@ladisch.de>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 12:53:14 +0200
From: Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
To: Yong Zhang <yong.zhang0@...il.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...e.hu,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Andreas Mohr <andi@...as.de>,
Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@...fusion.mobi>,
Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>,
Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>,
Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 02/62] mpu401:snd_mpu401_uart_new(): split semantic
of irq_flags
Yong Zhang wrote:
> Now snd_mpu401_uart_new() parameter 'irq_flags' take two role
> in it: one is the condition to request_irq and the other is
> the real irq_flags which will be transfered to request_irq().
>
> So add another parameter 'want_irq' to take the role of the
> first one, this will make it easy to remove IRQF_DISABLED.
Please note that the irq number is also intended to pass this
information:
> * @irq: the irq number, -1 if no interrupt for mpu
> ...
> - if (irq >= 0 && irq_flags) {
> if (request_irq(irq, snd_mpu401_uart_interrupt, irq_flags,
Of course, most of snd_mpu401_uart_new()'s users get this wrong and use
0 instead of -1, relying on the irq_flags parameter only. But if these
are fixed to use irq == -1, we get the same effect without having to
introduce another parameter.
Regards,
Clemens
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists