On Thu, 2013-02-28 at 18:43 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2013-02-28, Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 15:24 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: > >> For a polled serial driver that doesn't use interrupts, to what should > >> the "irq" field in the uart_port structure be set? Should it be 0? > >> Should it be the unused IRQ associated with the PCI card slot in which > >> the board is found? > > > > Doesn't look supported, but adding the support doesn't look difficult. > > At the very least, a patch is required so that on port shutdown, the > > core doesn't synchronize_irq(). > > Does the call ty synchronize_irq() do any harm? AFAICT, it will just > cause a short delay if handling of that IRQ is in-progress. > > I currently set the "irq" field to the IRQ number that would be used > by the board if I did choose to enable interrupts. That seems to work > fine (with rather limited testing). AFAICT, it's probably ok; but it might not be. Certainly more robust to just add a UPF_POLLING flag and skip the synchronize_irq(). Is this an in-tree driver? Regards, Peter Hurley -- 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
