On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:55:39AM +0530, Shubhrajyoti wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 September 2012 03:21 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> >> -omap_i2c_isr(int this_irq, void *dev_id)
> >> > +omap_i2c_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >> > {
> >> > struct omap_i2c_dev *dev = dev_id;
> >> > + irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
> > Shouldn't that be IRQ_NONE?
> Actually we are processing it so I thought it to be ok.
Are we processing it? There is nothing acknowledged AFAICS. Anyway, we
can fix that with a later patch.
> Also a similar discussion.
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2012-June/104422.html
I totally agree to the things said there.
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
