Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Dec 2010 09:46:51 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/4] net: phy: balance disable/enable irq on change | From | Jean-Michel Hautbois <> |
| |
2010/12/23 David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>: > From: Jean-Michel Hautbois <jhautbois@gmail.com> > Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 11:58:48 +0100 > >> When phy interface changes its status, it calls phy_change() function. >> This function calls the interrupt disabling functions for the driver >> registered, but if this driver doesn't implement it, there is no IRQ >> disabling. After doing the work, we call enable_irq and not the >> respective driver function. This fixes it, as it could lead to an >> unbalanced IRQ. Error code changed to EOPNOTSUPP. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jean-Michel Hautbois <jhautbois@gmail.com> > > This is completely bogus. > > First of all, there are 5 call sites for phy_change_interrupt() but > you've only implemented the new semantics for two of those. > > Therefore, if we even wanted this, we should implement the behavior in > phy_change_interrupt() itself instead of duplicating the logic at > each and every call site. > > But we don't want this.
OK, I understand that point.
> It's not appropriate at all. If a device lacks a way to turn > interrupt off and on, using disable_irq() and enable_irq() is not > necessarily correct. > > If the interrupt line is shared, for example, this will break > everything. >
OK, well, maybe is there at least one thing we could do : in phy_change, instead of calling phy_disable_interrupts(), balanced by enable_irq, we probably should use phy_enable_interrupts(). -- 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/
| |