On 2013-02-28, Peter Hurley <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
No.
One of my polled mode drivers is an enhanced version of the new rp2
serial driver. It's currently in beta test. I posted a snapshot of
that one to this list last week, but it hasn't been submitted as a git
patch yet.
The other is a rewrite of the rocket driver -- it's still under
development. I'd be happy to submit it for inclusion in the tree when
it's done.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Give them RADAR-GUIDED
at SKEE-BALL LANES and
gmail.com VELVEETA BURRITOS!!
--
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
