>>>>> "Timur" == Timur Tabi <ti...@freescale.com> writes:
Timur> Peter Korsgaard wrote: >> @@ -875,7 +875,8 @@ static int __devinit fsl_dma_chan_probe(struct >> fsl_dma_device *fdev, >> } >> >> dev_info(fdev->dev, "#%d (%s), irq %d\n", new_fsl_chan->id, >> - compatible, new_fsl_chan->irq); >> + compatible, >> + new_fsl_chan->irq != NO_IRQ ? new_fsl_chan->irq : fdev->irq); Timur> Wouldn't it be better to make sure that, on 83xx, Timur> new_fsl_chan->irq has the same value as fdev->irq before we Timur> get here? Why? Does it buy us anything to request_irq again for each channel? Now we're at it, it seems like there's a check for != NO_IRQ missing in fsl_dma_chan_remove(). -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
