On 6 April 2012 15:35, John Crispin <j...@phrozen.org> wrote:
> thx for all the patches
>
> On 06/04/12 14:37, Conor O'Gorman wrote:
>> +--- a/arch/mips/lantiq/xway/dev-dwc_otg.c
>> ++++ b/arch/mips/lantiq/xway/dev-dwc_otg.c
>> +@@ -43,7 +43,6 @@ static struct resource resources[] =
>> + },
>> + [1] = {
>> + .name = "dwc_otg_irq",
>> +- .start = LTQ_USB_INT,
>> + .flags = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
>> + },
>> + };
>> +@@ -63,6 +62,7 @@ int __init
>> + xway_register_dwc(int pin)
>> + {
>> + struct irq_data d;
>> ++ resources[1].start = LTQ_USB_INT;
>> + d.irq = resources[1].start;
>> + ltq_enable_irq(&d);
>> + platform_dev.dev.platform_data = (void*) pin;
>
> is there a technical reason for this bit that i fail to understand or is
> it more a style preference fixup ?
You missed that part:
> +-#define LTQ_USB_INT (INT_NUM_IM1_IRL0 + 22)
> ++#define LTQ_USB_INT ((ltq_is_ase()) ? (INT_NUM_IM0_IRL0 + 31) :\
> ++ (INT_NUM_IM1_IRL0 + 22))
And I assume ltq_is_ase() can only be called at runtime.
Coding style wise I would prefer it to have at least (), or even
better as an inline function along
static inline int ltq_get_usb_int()
{
return ltq_is_ase() ? (INT_NUM_IM0_IRL0 + 31) :
(INT_NUM_IM1_IRL0 + 22);
}
Jonas
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
