Hi,
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 02:30:27PM +0200, ext hvaibhav@xxxxxx wrote:
+static irqreturn_t s35390a_irq_thread(int irq, void *handle)
+{
+ char buf[1];
+ struct s35390a *s35390a = handle;
+ struct i2c_client *client = s35390a->client[0];
don't you need some locking on the irq handler ? a mutex maybe ? Just
wondering...
@@ -261,15 +424,30 @@ static int s35390a_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
if (s35390a_get_datetime(client, &tm) < 0)
dev_warn(&client->dev, "clock needs to be set\n");
+ if (client->irq >= 0) {
+ err = request_threaded_irq(client->irq, NULL,
+ s35390a_irq_thread,
+ IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT,
+ client->name, s35390a);
+ if (err) {
+ dev_err(&client->dev, "unable to request IRQ\n");
+ goto exit_dummy;
+ }
+ }
+
s35390a->rtc = rtc_device_register(s35390a_driver.driver.name,
&client->dev, &s35390a_rtc_ops, THIS_MODULE);
if (IS_ERR(s35390a->rtc)) {
err = PTR_ERR(s35390a->rtc);
- goto exit_dummy;
+ goto exit_intr;
}
+
return 0;
+exit_intr:
+ free_irq(client->irq, client);
free_irq() won't behave correctly, I believe since you're passing
different dev_id parameters. If you look at the implementation of
free_irq() you'll see it uses dev_id to find the correct struct
irqaction pointer.
--
balbi
DefectiveByDesign.org
--
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
