On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 05:21:03PM +0530, Shubhrajyoti Datta wrote: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Mark Brown > <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > A small code saving and less error handling to worry about. > Looks good. > request irq could be devm_* also. Not an objection though. devm_ is a much worse idea for IRQs than for other resource types since interrupts are delivered asynchronously. Using it safely requires that we do the analysis required to make sure that the hardware is totally idle and can't interrupt.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
