On Sat, 10 Nov 2012 11:52:32 -0600
Matt Schulte <matts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> @@ -1484,6 +1526,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(serial8250_modem_status);
> >> int serial8250_handle_irq(struct uart_port *port, unsigned int iir)
> >> {
> >> unsigned char status;
> >> + unsigned char int0, int1, int2, int3;
> >> unsigned long flags;
> >> struct uart_8250_port *up =
> >> container_of(port, struct uart_8250_port, port);
> >> @@ -1503,6 +1546,19 @@ int serial8250_handle_irq(struct uart_port
> >> *port, unsigned int iir)
> >> if (status & UART_LSR_THRE)
> >> serial8250_tx_chars(up);
> >>
> >> + /*
> >> + * These Exar UARTs have an extra interrupt indicator that could
> >> + * fire for a few unimplemented interrupts. Put this here just
> >> + * to be on the safe side that these interrupts don't go unhandled.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> + if (up->port.type == PORT_XR17V35X && status == 0) {
> >> + int0 = serial_port_in(port, 0x80);
> >> + int1 = serial_port_in(port, 0x81);
> >> + int2 = serial_port_in(port, 0x82);
> >> + int3 = serial_port_in(port, 0x83);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
> >> return 1;
> >
> > Provide your own handle_irq method rather than adding more special cases
> > to the default one (you can just wrap the default one and then perform
> > the extra actions). Just a case of trying to keep the fast paths clean and
> > maintainable.
> >
> > Otherwise looks good.
> >
> > Alan
>
> Thanks Alan, would the new Exar_handle_irq method be allowed to be
> inside 8250.c?
If its probed generically then it probably should - we can move it later
anyway
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
