On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 12:03:22AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sul, 2005-11-06 at 22:42 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > We could do as you suggest, but my concern would be adding extra
> > complexity to drivers, causing them to do something like:
> >
> > ret = request_irq(..., SA_TRIGGER_HIGH, ...);
> > if (ret == -E<whatever>)
> > ret = request_irq(..., SA_TRIGGER_RISING, ...);
> >
> > The alternative is:
> >
> > ret = request_irq(..., SA_TRIGGER_HIGH | SA_TRIGGER_RISING, ...);
>
> I was thinking that specifying neither would imply 'don't care' or
> 'system default'. That would mean existing drivers just worked and
> driver authors who didnt care need take no specific action.
Yes, this is exactly what the ARM implementation already does. I'll
add a comment to that effect.
As per benh's suggestion, I don't see the point of adding a definition
- not unless we're going to fix up all drivers which call request_irq().
That would be a very big task.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
