Hello.
Sarah Sharp wrote:
Refactor out the code in usb_add_hcd() to request the IRQ line for the
HCD. This will only need to be called once for the two xHCI roothubs, so
it's easier to refactor it into a function, rather than wrapping the long
if-else block into another if statement.
Signed-off-by: Sarah Sharp<sarah.a.sharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
diff --git a/drivers/usb/core/hcd.c b/drivers/usb/core/hcd.c
index 02ce408..fda5a11 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/core/hcd.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/core/hcd.c
@@ -2197,6 +2197,44 @@ void usb_put_hcd (struct usb_hcd *hcd)
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(usb_put_hcd);
+static int usb_hcd_request_irqs(struct usb_hcd *hcd,
+ unsigned int irqnum, unsigned long irqflags)
+{
+ int retval;
+
+ if (hcd->driver->irq) {
+
+ /* IRQF_DISABLED doesn't work as advertised when used together
+ * with IRQF_SHARED. As usb_hcd_irq() will always disable
+ * interrupts we can remove it here.
+ */
+ if (irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)
+ irqflags &= ~IRQF_DISABLED;
+
+ snprintf(hcd->irq_descr, sizeof(hcd->irq_descr), "%s:usb%d",
+ hcd->driver->description, hcd->self.busnum);
+ if ((retval = request_irq(irqnum,&usb_hcd_irq, irqflags,
IIRC, checkpatch.pl complains about assignment being a part of
the *if* operator...
I meant to type "statement". "Operator" would be a mechanical translation
from Russian. :-)
Yes, that's not my code, I just moved it. I might create a patch before
this one to fix the original code, but IMO the fix shouldn't be part of
the refactoring patch.
I'd disagree, as the change needed is not that serious.
Sarah Sharp
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
