On Sun, 2008-01-20 at 10:18 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > So it seems to me like the polling mode code is never actually used?
> > Unless some platforms include an "empty" IRQ in their device
> > definition. Which indeed seems to be the case... but then they set
> the
> > IRQ to 0, NOT to NO_IRQ, so
On Mon, 2008-01-21 at 17:10 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:39:43 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > Here' s a version with the compares to zero switched to NO_IRQ. If I
> > understand how NO_IRQ works it is the correct change. My understanding
> > is that under ppc IRQ z
Hi Jon,
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 10:39:43 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Here' s a version with the compares to zero switched to NO_IRQ. If I
> understand how NO_IRQ works it is the correct change. My understanding
> is that under ppc IRQ zero was legal and NO_IRQ was -1. But then the
> whole kernel switche
Here' s a version with the compares to zero switched to NO_IRQ. If I
understand how NO_IRQ works it is the correct change. My understanding
is that under ppc IRQ zero was legal and NO_IRQ was -1. But then the
whole kernel switched to NO_IRQ = zero. Powerpc updated to NO_IRQ=0
and used virtual IRQs
On 1/20/08, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > @@ -381,7 +385,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > i2c_del_adapter(&i2c->adap);
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> >
> > - if (i2c->irq != 0)
> > + if (i2c->irq != NO_IRQ)
> >
Hi Jon,
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:47:43 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> Return errors that were being ignored in the mpc-i2c driver
This wording is a bit excessive. The errors were not being ignored,
only the error code was replaced with a less informative -1. Still,
that's a good fix, although totally un
6 matches
Mail list logo
