![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 12:03:22AM +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sul, 2005-11-06 at 22:42 +0000, Russell King wrote: > > We could do as you suggest, but my concern would be adding extra > > complexity to drivers, causing them to do something like: > > ret = request_irq(..., SA_TRIGGER_HIGH, ...); > > if (ret == -E<whatever>) > > ret = request_irq(..., SA_TRIGGER_RISING, ...); > > > > The alternative is: > > > > ret = request_irq(..., SA_TRIGGER_HIGH | SA_TRIGGER_RISING, ...); > > I was thinking that specifying neither would imply 'don't care' or > 'system default'. That would mean existing drivers just worked and > driver authors who didnt care need take no specific action. Yes, this is exactly what the ARM implementation already does. I'll add a comment to that effect. As per benh's suggestion, I don't see the point of adding a definition - not unless we're going to fix up all drivers which call request_irq(). That would be a very big task. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-11-07 09:56 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||