Messages in this thread |  | | From | Esben Haabendal <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Support IRQ_NOAUTOEN flag in set_irq_chained_handler() | Date | Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:05:11 +0100 |
| |
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?
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...
> 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?
/Esben
|  |