On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 02:08:03PM +0530, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior >> <sebastian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 12:05:40PM +0530, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote: >> >> > - ret = usb_add_hcd(hcd, pdev->resource[1].start, >> >> > - IRQF_DISABLED | IRQF_SHARED); >> >> >> >> here the irqflag is set to IRQF_DISABLED | IRQF_SHARED. But your >> >> generic ehci_hcd_plat_add >> >> sets it to IRQF_SHARED always. >> > >> > So? The former is defined to 0. The removal of IRQF_DISABLED is on my todo >> > list. >> >> I see IRQF_DISABLED defined to 0x20 in my setup. > Okay, it is defined to 0x20 but it is ignored by the core code. ok. > >> Even then your generic usb_add_hcd shouldn't always set irqflag to >> IRQF_SHARED. > Why not IRQF_SHARED? What is wrong with IRQF_SHARED? We determine the source > of the IRQ thanks to ehci spec. I just wanted the flexibility to set irqflag to any value :-) > >> With irq chaining for remote wakeup (still this is wip >> for OMAP4), the irqflag should have IRQF_NO_SUSPEND set. We should >> have a way to set irqflag to different value and this value should be >> set based on the platform. > > So you want a way to set IRQF_NO_SUSPEND for remote wakeup? I think this > could be arranged. yes. cool :-) > > Sebastian > -- 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
