Re: [PATCH 13/13] pcmcia: rework the irq_req_t typedef

[Wolfram Sang]

Hi Dominik,

> diff --git a/include/pcmcia/cs.h b/include/pcmcia/cs.h
> index afc2bfb..39376e6 100644
> --- a/include/pcmcia/cs.h
> +++ b/include/pcmcia/cs.h
> @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ typedef struct irq_req_t {
>  #define IRQ_TYPE_TIME                        0x01
>  #define IRQ_TYPE_DYNAMIC_SHARING     0x02
>  #define IRQ_FORCED_PULSE             0x04
> -#define IRQ_FIRST_SHARED             0x08
> +//#define IRQ_FIRST_SHARED           0x08
>  //#define IRQ_HANDLE_PRESENT         0x10

Note: //-comments are discouraged according to CodingStyle.

>  #define IRQ_PULSE_ALLOCATED          0x100
>  
> diff --git a/sound/pcmcia/pdaudiocf/pdaudiocf.c 
> b/sound/pcmcia/pdaudiocf/pdaudiocf.c
> index 7717e01..b908c72 100644
> --- a/sound/pcmcia/pdaudiocf/pdaudiocf.c
> +++ b/sound/pcmcia/pdaudiocf/pdaudiocf.c
> @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ static int snd_pdacf_probe(struct pcmcia_device *link)
>       link->io.NumPorts1 = 16;
>  
>       link->irq.Attributes = IRQ_TYPE_EXCLUSIVE | IRQ_FORCED_PULSE;
> -     // link->irq.Attributes = IRQ_TYPE_DYNAMIC_SHARING|IRQ_FIRST_SHARED;
> +     // link->irq.Attributes = IRQ_TYPE_DYNAMIC_SHARING;

Ditto. Plus, wouldn't it be easier to just drop this line? I couldn't find an
explanation for this comment, it even contradicts with the line above.

Regards,

   Wolfram

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

_______________________________________________
Linux PCMCIA reimplementation list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pcmcia