On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <sebastian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 02:53:39PM +0530, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote: >> > 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 :-) > Then please say so and don't make IRQF_SHARED look bad :) > >> >> 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 :-) > > Is there a way that I can know this upfront? Like a flag somewhere or an > assigned callback which isn't there otherwise? maybe we can add a .irqflag member in hc_driver? > > 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
