Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757659AbcKCCRO (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2016 22:17:14 -0400 Received: from kvm5.telegraphics.com.au ([98.124.60.144]:47144 "EHLO kvm5.telegraphics.com.au" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756408AbcKCCRL (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Nov 2016 22:17:11 -0400 Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:17:18 +1100 (AEDT) From: Finn Thain To: Ondrej Zary cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] g_NCR5380: Add IRQ auto-configuration for HP C2502 In-Reply-To: <201611020929.22464.linux@rainbow-software.org> Message-ID: References: <1477945112-25659-1-git-send-email-linux@rainbow-software.org> <1477945112-25659-5-git-send-email-linux@rainbow-software.org> <201611020929.22464.linux@rainbow-software.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1335 Lines: 39 On Wed, 2 Nov 2016, Ondrej Zary wrote: > > Also, you've ignored the irq module parameters. From the user's point > > of view, surely the least surprising thing is to attempt to configure > > the card for whatever irq the user asked for. > > I haven't. NCR5380_find_irq is only called when irq is set to IRQ_AUTO. > My mistake. > > If the specified irq isn't supported by the board, just log an error > > and fail. If you want to be user friendly, print a message to tell > > them what irqs the card supports. > > If the IRQ is not supported (or does not work), user gets a warning and > the driver continues with IRQ disabled. > > > If the user asks for IRQ_AUTO, just configure the board for a > > hard-coded default, say 9, and print a warning message to say so. > > The card is almost Plug&Play. The base address is already configured > automatically by the driver so doing the same for IRQ makes sense. Why don't we see any other drivers doing this? If the card was really plug and play, I expect we would just call pnp_irq(), as the other PNP drivers do. > > > Either way, if request_irq fails just continue with NO_IRQ, as per > > usual. > > > > To me that's the most flexible and least surprising behaviour. But > > again, if someone with more ISA knowledge wishes to weigh in, that's > > fine too. --