On Thursday 26 July 2007 11:57, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, July 27, 2007 12:29 am, Alan Cox wrote: > >> > A small number of boxes do share IRQ12 and it was switched to shared > >> for > >> > them. > >> If that is the case interrupt handlers should be able to determine > >> whether > >> a certain interrupt comes from their respective devices, and return > >> IRQ_HANDLED or IRQ_NONE accordingly. Returning IRQ_HANDLED > >> unconditionally > >> when IRQF_SHARED is set seems strange. Is this behavior intended? > > > > Sometimes you simple can't tell and in those cases you have no choice. > As I mentioned in a previous email, i8042_interrupt considers that it > should not handle an interrupt when there is no data to read and, > accordingly, it returns IRQ_NONE in such cases. I was just wondering if we > could follow the same approach to make i8042_aux_test_irq more > IRQF_SHARED-friendly. >
Yes, you are right. Patch applied to 'for-linus' branch of input tree. Thank you. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
