On Thursday 26 July 2007 11:57, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, July 27, 2007 12:29 am, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> > A small number of boxes do share IRQ12 and it was switched to shared
> >> for
> >> > them.
> >> If that is the case interrupt handlers should be able to determine
> >> whether
> >> a certain interrupt comes from their respective devices, and return
> >> IRQ_HANDLED or IRQ_NONE accordingly. Returning IRQ_HANDLED
> >> unconditionally
> >> when IRQF_SHARED is set seems strange. Is this behavior intended?
> >
> > Sometimes you simple can't tell and in those cases you have no choice.
> As I mentioned in a previous email, i8042_interrupt considers that it
> should not handle an interrupt when there is no data to read and,
> accordingly, it returns IRQ_NONE in such cases. I was just wondering if we
> could follow the same approach to make i8042_aux_test_irq more
> IRQF_SHARED-friendly.
>
Yes, you are right. Patch applied to 'for-linus' branch of input tree.
Thank you.
--
Dmitry
-
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]
