On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
From: Naga Venkata Srikanth V vnv.srika...@samsung.com
1) Removed request_irq() and replaced it with request_threaded_irq().
2) Removed generic_handle_irq() and replaced it with
handle_nested_irq().
Handling of these interrupts is nested,
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
From: Naga Venkata Srikanth V vnv.srika...@samsung.com
1) Removed request_irq() and replaced it with request_threaded_irq().
2) Removed generic_handle_irq() and replaced it with
handle_nested_irq().
Handling of these interrupts is nested,
On 07/24/2013 01:49 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
From: Naga Venkata Srikanth V vnv.srika...@samsung.com
1) Removed request_irq() and replaced it with request_threaded_irq().
2) Removed generic_handle_irq() and replaced it with
handle_nested_irq().
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_warn(%s: I2C error %d reading PIH ISR\n, __func__, ret);
Does the user really care which function we're returning from.
Would it be better if you replace '__func__' with the device name?
This module hasn't been converted to the device yet:(
(I mean
On 07/24/2013 03:50 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_warn(%s: I2C error %d reading PIH ISR\n, __func__, ret);
Does the user really care which function we're returning from.
Would it be better if you replace '__func__' with the device name?
This module hasn't been
From: Naga Venkata Srikanth V vnv.srika...@samsung.com
1) Removed request_irq() and replaced it with request_threaded_irq().
2) Removed generic_handle_irq() and replaced it with
handle_nested_irq().
Handling of these interrupts is nested, as we are handling an
interrupt (for e.g rtc, mmc1)
