Re: [PATCH] serial: omap: Fix IRQ handling return value

2013-08-27 Thread Kevin Hilman
Greg,


On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
 +Felipe

 On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Alexander Savchenko
 oleksandr.savche...@ti.com wrote:
 From: Ruchika Kharwar ruch...@ti.com

 Ensure the Interrupt handling routine return IRQ_HANDLED vs
 IRQ_NONE.

 Why?

 By unconditionally returning IRQ_HANDLED, this patch will surely break
 systems where the UART IRQ is shared with other platforms.

 I just noticed this patch when bisecting a related problem.  Why
 wasn't this Cc'd to linux-omap where OMAP users might have been more
 likely to see it?

 Greg, without a better justification in the changelog, I think this
 patch should be dropped from tty-next.

Can you drop this from tty-next please?

The authors aren't responding (one of the ti.com addresses bounced)
and this fix is most is not correct.

Kevin

 Kevin

 Signed-off-by: Ruchika Kharwar ruch...@ti.com
 Signed-off-by: Alexander Savchenko oleksandr.savche...@ti.com
 ---
  drivers/tty/serial/omap-serial.c |4 +---
  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

 diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/omap-serial.c 
 b/drivers/tty/serial/omap-serial.c
 index b6d1728..70feeb3 100644
 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/omap-serial.c
 +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/omap-serial.c
 @@ -479,7 +479,6 @@ static irqreturn_t serial_omap_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
 struct uart_omap_port *up = dev_id;
 unsigned int iir, lsr;
 unsigned int type;
 -   irqreturn_t ret = IRQ_NONE;
 int max_count = 256;

 spin_lock(up-port.lock);
 @@ -490,7 +489,6 @@ static irqreturn_t serial_omap_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
 if (iir  UART_IIR_NO_INT)
 break;

 -   ret = IRQ_HANDLED;
 lsr = serial_in(up, UART_LSR);

 /* extract IRQ type from IIR register */
 @@ -529,7 +527,7 @@ static irqreturn_t serial_omap_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
 pm_runtime_put_autosuspend(up-dev);
 up-port_activity = jiffies;

 -   return ret;
 +   return IRQ_HANDLED;
  }

  static unsigned int serial_omap_tx_empty(struct uart_port *port)
 --
 1.7.9.5

 --
 To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
 the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
 More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: [PATCH] serial: omap: Fix IRQ handling return value

2013-08-27 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 07:30:19AM -0700, Kevin Hilman wrote:
 Greg,
 
 
 On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Kevin Hilman khil...@linaro.org wrote:
  +Felipe
 
  On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 6:29 AM, Alexander Savchenko
  oleksandr.savche...@ti.com wrote:
  From: Ruchika Kharwar ruch...@ti.com
 
  Ensure the Interrupt handling routine return IRQ_HANDLED vs
  IRQ_NONE.
 
  Why?
 
  By unconditionally returning IRQ_HANDLED, this patch will surely break
  systems where the UART IRQ is shared with other platforms.
 
  I just noticed this patch when bisecting a related problem.  Why
  wasn't this Cc'd to linux-omap where OMAP users might have been more
  likely to see it?
 
  Greg, without a better justification in the changelog, I think this
  patch should be dropped from tty-next.
 
 Can you drop this from tty-next please?
 
 The authors aren't responding (one of the ti.com addresses bounced)
 and this fix is most is not correct.

Yes, sorry, behind on my pending tty patch queue.  I'll try to get to it
this week.

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-omap in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html