Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:38:59 +0100 | From | Alexandre Belloni <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] irqchip: Add DT binding doc for the virtual irq demuxer chip |
| |
On 11/02/2015 at 12:36:56 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote : > > Actually, that was one of the requirements expressed by Thomas (Thomas, > > correct me if I'm wrong). > > The point was to force shared irq users to explicitly specify that they > > are mixing !IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND because they have no > > other choice. > > > > With your patch, there's no way to inform users that they are > > erroneously setting the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag on one of their shared > > interrupt. > > Sure, but even with the demux that's still the case (because it pretends > that this mismatch is a HW property rather than a property of the set of > drivers sharing the interrupt). > > Whether there's a demux node in the DTB is entirely separate from > whether the drivers can actually handle the situation. > > So if we need a warning in the presence of mismatch and action masking, > we need the exact same warning with the demux. >
Actually, we only care about removing the warning. It is effectively the HW that forces us to do so. So we would be completely happy with a new flag to silence the warning as we know what we are doing (I think that has already been suggested).
> The presence of a demux implies the DTB author believes they have solved > the problem with the demux, not necessarily that they have considered > the situation and updated drivers appropriately. Relying on the demux to > imply that everything is fine only gives us the illusion that everything > is fine. >
Whatever the solution, it could be used as a workaround the warning as this is exactly what we need for our platform.
-- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
| |