On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 03:51:49PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:33, Jean Delvare wrote: > > Why do we have set_irq_type() if we're not supposed to call it? I am > > not claiming to be an expert in the area, but it seems totally > > reasonable to me that the same piece of code instantiating an I2C > > device is also responsible for setting its IRQ type. > > but we're back to the same issue mentioned earlier -- you cant have a > single kernel build with modules supporting multiple drivers > simultaneously. we like to ship development boards with a single > kernel build on it with many modules. then people can pick the addon > boards they wish to prototype with at runtime by plugging in the card > and loading the module. I also dislike set_irq_type() as it doesn't check whether there is anyone registered with the interrupt, which means that you could set the irq type of someone else's irq. I wonder if we should pass a struct resource instead, in case there are multiple interrupt sources, as well as having it registered with the right resource systems. -- Ben Q: What's a light-year? A: One-third less calories than a regular year. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
