Kevin Hilman wrote, on 03/03/2011 05:45 AM:
Nishanth Menon<nm@xxxxxx> writes:
We will enable and disable interrupt on a need basis in the class
driver. we need to keep the irq disabled by default else the
forceupdate or vcbypass events could trigger events that we dont
need/expect to handle.
It's not clear from the patch where the IRQ is re-enabled. For example,
without knowing better, I would expect a corresponding change to the
Class 3 driver to enable/disable the IRQ as needed.
Why would that be?
a) class 3 driver does not request for any notifiers
b) class 3 does'nt need interrupts.
c) each class driver can choose to enable when it needs it - class3 does'nt.
is it fine if I add a "this is a preperation for class drivers such as
class 2 and class 1.5 which would need to use interrupts" in commit message?
Kevin
Signed-off-by: Nishanth Menon<nm@xxxxxx>
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
index 7931fcd..9c61ab0 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/smartreflex.c
@@ -281,6 +281,7 @@ static int sr_late_init(struct omap_sr *sr_info)
IRQF_DISABLED, name, (void *)sr_info);
if (ret)
goto error;
+ disable_irq(sr_info->irq);
}
if (pdata&& pdata->enable_on_init)
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
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
