ARM: request_irq() failure ignored in omap_uart_enable_irqs()
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): [email protected]
PATCH 1/1 ARM: request_irq() failure ignored in omap_uart_enable_irqs()
(Resending to new ML)
From: Roel Kluin [mailto:roel.kluin at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 12:18 PM
arch/arm/mach-omap2/serial.c void omap_uart_enable_irqs(int enable)
Quoted 5 lines
arch/arm/mach-omap2/serial.c +0
-0@@ -471,11 +471,18 @@ void omap_uart_enable_irqs(int enable)
Wouldn't it make more sense to return int, instead of void here?
The caller would never know if the call internally failed.
Just a thought...
Regards,
Sergio
Quoted 29 lines
arch/arm/mach-omap2/serial.c +10
-3int ret;struct omap_uart_state *uart; -list_for_each_entry (uart, &uart_list, node) { -if (enable) +if (enable) { +list_for_each_entry (uart, &uart_list, node) { ret =request_irq (uart->p->irq, omap_uart_interrupt,IRQF_SHARED ,"serial idle" , (void *)uart); -else +if (ret <0 ) { + printk(KERN_ERR "omap_uart_enable_irqs: failed to request IRQ%i (%i)\n", + uart->p->irq, ret); +return ; + } + } + }else { +list_for_each_entry (uart, &uart_list, node)free_irq (uart->p->irq, (void *)uart); }}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
List admin: http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-
kernelFAQ: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php Etiquette: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php