Re: [PATCH 2/2] mrst_max3110: fix SPI UART interrupt parameters

[David Cohen]

On 10/23/2013 11:21 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:10:48AM -0700, David Cohen wrote:
> > > My idea is always use threaded irq and passing flags into request.
> > > Like as:
> > > unsigned long flags = res->flags & IORESOURCE_BITS;
> > > ...
> > > request_threaded_irq(max->irq, serial_m3110_irq, IRQF_ONESHOT | flags, "max3110", max);
> >
> >
> > Oh, maybe we were talking about different things afterall :)
> > The reason this struct plat_max3110 was created is to allow platform
> > code (located under arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/device_libs/) to define
> > the irq edge type.
> > When I saw your comment I though you were referring to struct resource
> > (which has IORESOURCE_IRQ_* flags). But unlike platform_device,
> > spi_device has no struct resource * to replace the need of struct
> > plat_max3110.
> >
> > OTOH your suggestion can replace this piece of code:
> >
> > @@ -68,6 +69,7 @@ struct uart_max3110 {
> >          u8 clock;
> >          u8 parity, word_7bits;
> >          u16 irq;
> > +       u16 irq_edge_triggered;
>
> max3110 is already edge triggered:
>
> 495                 ret = request_irq(max->irq, serial_m3110_irq,
> 496                                 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING, "max3110", max);

Yeah. But in Merrifield case (at least the reference board used now) 
it's not edge triggered. I need this driver to support this situation
prior to send mrst_max3110 platform code for it.

> it would be nice a threaded IRQ instead of using a singlethread
> workqueue, though.

That sounds reasonable. I'll add this to my TODO list too. Thanks.

Br, David Cohen
--
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/