[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Support IRQ_NOAUTOEN flag in set_irq_chained_handler()
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Esben Haabendal wrote:

> Thomas Gleixner <> writes:
> > On Fri, 18 Mar 2011, wrote:
> >
> >> From: Esben Haabendal <>
> >>
> >> 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

> 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 ?



 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-22 12:19    [W:0.041 / U:1.600 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site