[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()
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?

The idea of the patch is that it will do exactly the same as
before, unless you specifically set IRQ_NOAUTOEN before calling

> 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?


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-22 10:07    [W:0.056 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site