IRQF_SHARED should be used with IRQF_DISABLED. This RTC have dedicated
irq line so there is no reason to use IRQF_SHARED.
Signed-off-by: Atsushi Nemoto <[email protected]>
---
drivers/rtc/rtc-tx4939.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-tx4939.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-tx4939.c
index 4ee4857..69085d9 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-tx4939.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-tx4939.c
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int __init tx4939_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
tx4939_rtc_cmd(pdata->rtcreg, TX4939_RTCCTL_COMMAND_NOP);
if (devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, irq, tx4939_rtc_interrupt,
- IRQF_DISABLED | IRQF_SHARED,
+ IRQF_DISABLED,
pdev->name, &pdev->dev) < 0) {
return -EBUSY;
}
--
1.5.6.3
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 01:50:33 +0900
Atsushi Nemoto <[email protected]> wrote:
> IRQF_SHARED should be used with IRQF_DISABLED. This RTC have dedicated
> irq line so there is no reason to use IRQF_SHARED.
Is that true for every board this rtc is/will be used on?
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 19:10:53 +0200, Alessandro Zummo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > IRQF_SHARED should be used with IRQF_DISABLED. This RTC have dedicated
> > irq line so there is no reason to use IRQF_SHARED.
>
> Is that true for every board this rtc is/will be used on?
Yes. This RTC is internal device of TX4939 SoC and its irq line is
hardwired to SoC's interrupt controller. At least TX4939 uses
dedicated irq number for the RTC and I believe all future SoC (if
possible) will follow.
---
Atsushi Nemoto
On Tue, 7 Apr 2009 01:50:33 +0900, Atsushi Nemoto <[email protected]> wrote:
> IRQF_SHARED should be used with IRQF_DISABLED. This RTC have dedicated
> irq line so there is no reason to use IRQF_SHARED.
Oops, the description was wrong: s/should be used/should not be used/.
I will resend with fixed description.
---
Atsushi Nemoto