[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44b503b8-9f2a-50ac-c4c9-d25258d98ef5@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 21:22:55 +0100
From: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
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
On 09.11.2018 21:13, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 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
>
I've seen at least one driver which configures interrupts in
config_init and doesn't define a config_intr callback
(ack_interrupt callback is there)
Intention of this check is not to ensure that the driver defines
everything to make interrupts work. All it states:
If at least one of the irq-related callbacks is defined, then
we interpret this as indicator that the PHY supports interrupts.
Heiner
Powered by blists - more mailing lists