[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5dd97e8f-8a52-c79c-2b00-7e6b807990ed@cmss.chinamobile.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2021 16:39:42 +0800
From: tangbin <tangbin@...s.chinamobile.com>
To: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Cc: Michael.Hennerich@...log.com, jic23@...nel.org, knaack.h@....de,
pmeerw@...erw.net, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: adc: ad7768-1: Fix the right interrupt
interfacecalls
Hi Lars-Peter:
Thanks for you reply!
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the patch. Aren't those two expressions equivalent? Are you
> seeing an issue with the current code? If so can you include that in
> the commit message?
>
> - Lars
>
>
When submitting this patch, I actually thought about it for a
while, but finally decided to submit it, my reason is as follows:
In numerical data of address, &ad7768_interrupt is equal to
ad7768_interrupt, and the compilation can pass. But I think they are not
the same, ad7768_interrupt is the first
address of the function, and its type is irqreturn_t, &ad7768_interrupt
represents the address of an object that points to the function
ad7768_interrupt().
So I think they are not the same, For previous experience with
devm_request_irq(), I send this patch. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry to bother
you.
Thanks
Tang Bin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists