Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 22 Mar 2011 12:17:20 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Support IRQ_NOAUTOEN flag in set_irq_chained_handler() |
| |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes: > > > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, eha@doredevelopment.dk wrote: > > > >> From: Esben Haabendal <eha@doredevelopment.dk> > >> > >> Handle IRQ_NOAUTOEN in __set_irq_handler() (ie. for > >> set_irq_chained_handler()) instead of just silently ignoring it, and in > >> the same way as is done in __setup_irq() (ie. request_irq()). > >> > >> This give a more consistent interface, and also adheres better to > >> the rule of least surprise. > > > > Well, that might be less surprising for you, but you will be surprised > > that such a change would be a real big surprise for all users of > > chained handlers in arch/arm. They simply would not work anymore. > > How is that? I don't see any use of IRQ_NOAUTOEN flag in arch/arm at > all. Is there some other way that IRQ_NOAUTOEN get's enabled in > arch/arm? Or is my patch broken in some way that it does change irq > handler setup when IRQ_NOAUTOEN is not set?
Ooops, sorry. I had it somewhere in the back of my memory that ARM marked all interrupts IRQ_NOAUTOEN by default. Confused that with NOPROBE.
> The idea of the patch is that it will do exactly the same as > before, unless you specifically set IRQ_NOAUTOEN before calling > set_irq_chained_handler...
I understand the patch :)
> > So we _cannot_ change the semantics here. All we can do is document > > it. > > With the current semantics, how are one supposed to be able use > set_irq_chained_handler without having the handler enabled immediately?
Not at all. Why do you want to do that ?
Thanks,
tglx
|  |