[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181109201307.GV5259@lunn.ch>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 21:13:07 +0100
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"maintainer:BROADCOM BCM63XX ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Carlo Caione <carlo@...one.org>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM63XX ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:ARM/Amlogic Meson SoC support"
<linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 1/2] net: phy: replace PHY_HAS_INTERRUPT with
a check for config_intr and ack_interrupt
Hi Heiner
> +static bool phy_drv_supports_irq(struct phy_driver *phydrv)
> +{
> + return phydrv->config_intr || phydrv->ack_interrupt;
> +}
Should this be && not || ? I thought both needed to be provided for
interrupts to work.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists