This patch proposes to remove the use of the IRQF_DISABLED flag
It's a NOOP since 2.6.35 and it will be removed one day.
Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <[email protected]>
---
drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c b/drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c
index 0489a2b..dfe79cc 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c
@@ -1018,7 +1018,7 @@ static int tegra_uart_startup(struct uart_port *u)
goto fail_hw_init;
}
- ret = request_irq(u->irq, tegra_uart_isr, IRQF_DISABLED,
+ ret = request_irq(u->irq, tegra_uart_isr, 0,
dev_name(u->dev), tup);
if (ret < 0) {
dev_err(u->dev, "Failed to register ISR for IRQ %d\n", u->irq);
--
1.8.1.2
On 10/06/2013 12:30 AM, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
> This patch proposes to remove the use of the IRQF_DISABLED flag
>
> It's a NOOP since 2.6.35 and it will be removed one day.
Laxman, care to comment? I'm not sure why the code explicitly specifies
IRQF_DISABLED if it's already a no-op. Perhaps the code expects
IRQF_DISABLED to do something, and hence there's some bug that needs to
be fixed because of it doesn't?
> Signed-off-by: Michael Opdenacker <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c b/drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c
> index 0489a2b..dfe79cc 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/serial-tegra.c
> @@ -1018,7 +1018,7 @@ static int tegra_uart_startup(struct uart_port *u)
> goto fail_hw_init;
> }
>
> - ret = request_irq(u->irq, tegra_uart_isr, IRQF_DISABLED,
> + ret = request_irq(u->irq, tegra_uart_isr, 0,
> dev_name(u->dev), tup);
> if (ret < 0) {
> dev_err(u->dev, "Failed to register ISR for IRQ %d\n", u->irq);
>
On Monday 07 October 2013 10:37 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 10/06/2013 12:30 AM, Michael Opdenacker wrote:
>> This patch proposes to remove the use of the IRQF_DISABLED flag
>>
>> It's a NOOP since 2.6.35 and it will be removed one day.
> Laxman, care to comment? I'm not sure why the code explicitly specifies
> IRQF_DISABLED if it's already a no-op. Perhaps the code expects
> IRQF_DISABLED to do something, and hence there's some bug that needs to
> be fixed because of it doesn't?
>
We are having this flag in our downstream driver from very long and
hence this is there when I wrote for the upstream driver. I checked with
BT without this flag and it worked fine so it is fine to remove this flag.
Acked-by: Laxman Dewangan <[email protected]>