Raghuveer, On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Raghuveer Murthy <x0075817@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Thursday 27 January 2011 06:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 06:19:21PM +0530, Raghuveer Murthy wrote: >>>> >>>> + r = request_irq(dss_irq, >>>> + cpu_is_omap24xx() >>>> + ? dss_irq_handler_omap2 >>>> + : dss_irq_handler_omap3, >>> >>> it should be >>> >>> cpu_is_omap24xx() >>> ? dss_irq_handler_omap3 >>> : dss_irq_handler_omap2, >>> >>> I am seeing a crash on Panda, which gets rectified with this >>> change. The root cause is access to DSS_IRQSTATUS register in the >>> dss_irq_handler_omap3 handler, which is not valid for OMAP4. >> >> That really doesn't look right. Let me translate the code you've just >> written: >> >> if (cpu_is_omap24xx()) >> handler = dss_irq_handler_omap3; >> else >> handler = dss_irq_handler_omap2; >> >> Which means: if we have an OMAP24xx device, use the OMAP3 handler, >> otherwise use the OMAP2 handler. That's got to be wrong. >> > I agree, that the logic seems counter-intuitive. I was doing a quick test. > > However, to keep the correct sequence, the logic inside the respective > handlers need to be looked at. If you see the patch series, this is relevant only for OMAP2,3. OMAP4 related IRQ handling is not yet introduced. There would a different patch set which should set the correct irq handler for OMAP4. > > Regards, > Raghuveer > -- 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
