On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:46:37AM +0200, ext Menon, Nishanth wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-omap- > > owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pandita, Vikram > > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:50 PM > > To: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Cc: Pandita, Vikram > > Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Serial: Define IRQ flags for 8250 driver > > > > > > + /* Get IRQ Trigger Flag */ > > + if (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_RISING) > > + irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING; > > + else if (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_FALLING) > > + irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING; > > + else if (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_HIGH) > > + irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH; > > + else if (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_LOW) > > + irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW; > > + > Blame it on my dislike for nested if elseif, but... > irq_flags |= > (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_RISING)? IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING : > (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_FALLING)? IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING : > (up->port.flags & IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH)? IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH : > (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_TRIG_LOW)? IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW : 0; > > Makes sense? switch (up->port.flags & UPF_IRQ_FLAGS_MASK) { case UPF_IRQ_TRIG_RISING: irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING; break; case UPF_IRQ_TRIG_FALLING: irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_FALLING; break; case UPF_IRQ_TRIG_HIGH: irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH; break; case UPF_IRQ_TRIG_LOW: irq_flags |= IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW; break; default: printk(KERN_ERR "Unsupported flag\n"); return -EINVAL; } ??? -- balbi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
