Re: [RFC] [PATCH 02/62] mpu401:snd_mpu401_uart_new(): split semanticof irq_flags

[Clemens Ladisch]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/