[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131004115840.GB2994@katana>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 13:58:41 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To: Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
Cc: Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kedareswara rao Appana <appana.durga.rao@...inx.com>,
Kedareswara rao Appana <appanad@...inx.com>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
Peter Korsgaard <jacmet@...site.dk>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] i2c: xilinx: Use devm_* functions
On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 11:16:20AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 10/04/2013 07:33 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >
> >> + i2c->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&pdev->dev, res);
> >> + if (IS_ERR(i2c->base)) {
> >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Could not allocate iomem\n");
> >
> > devm_ioremap_resource already prints error messages.
>
> you are right.
>
> >
> >> + ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, xiic_isr, 0, pdev->name, i2c);
> >
> > This is too early. Can you find out why?
>
> Why do you think that it is too early?
The ISR uses spinlocks which are not initialized by then.
> I am looking at origin code again and I think that the code
> is also problematic because in xiic_reinit() interrupts are enabled
> but they are requested later.
> Shouldn't be there a logic that interrupts should be enabled when
> interrupts are registered by the kernel?
First register the handler, then activate interrupts. You are right,
this needs to be fixed, too.
Regards,
Wolfram
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists