On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 12:21:53PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Lukasz.Rymanowski@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > >> +/**
> > >> + * cts_interrupt() - Called to handle CTS interrupt.
> > >> + * @irq: Interrupt that occurred.
> > >> + * @dev_id: Device ID where interrupt occurred.
> > >> + *
> > >> + * The cts_interrupt() function is called if interrupt on CTS occurred.
> > >> + * It disables the interrupt and starts a new work thread to handle
> > >> + * the interrupt.
> > >> + */
> > >> +static irqreturn_t cts_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) {
> > >> + struct uart_info *uart_info = dev_get_drvdata(dev_id); #ifdef
> > >> +CONFIG_PM
> > >> + disable_irq_wake(irq);
> > >> +#endif
> > >> + disable_irq_nosync(irq);
> > >> +
> > >> + /* Create work and leave IRQ context. */
> > >> + (void)create_work_item(uart_info, handle_cts_irq);
> > >> +
> > >> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
> > >> +}
> >
> > >Have you thought about using a threaded interrupt handler? That would make all this work cruft go away.
> >
> > Good point.
> > To be honest we did think about it but in the time we where we were busy with other issues.
> > Anyway, shall we resend patches now or we can push patch for it once driver gets in the tree ?
>
> Up to Greg.
Just send patches after it's in the linux-next tree. Give it a week or
so before that happens due to .39-rc1 issues at the moment and vacation
schedules...
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
