lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 3/5] irqchip: Add DT binding doc for the virtual irq demuxer chip
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:42:22 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:

> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +0000
> > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers using
> > > > > > > the interrupt would have to flag they're safe in that context.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Something like IRQF_"I can share the line with a timer" I guess? That wouldn't
> > > > > > hurt and can be checked at request time even.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess that would have to imply IRQF_SHARED, so we'd have something
> > > > > like:
> > > > >
> > > > > IRQF_SHARED_SUSPEND_OK - This handler is safe to call spuriously during
> > > > > suspend in the case the line is shared. The
> > > > > handler will not access unavailable hardware
> > > > > or kernel infrastructure during this period.
> > > > >
> > > > > #define __IRQF_SUSPEND_SPURIOUS 0x00040000
> > > > > #define IRQF_SHARED_SUSPEND_OK (IRQF_SHARED | __IRQF_SUSPEND_SPURIOUS)
> > > >
> > > > What about
> > > >
> > > > #define __IRQF_TIMER_SIBLING_OK 0x00040000
> > > > #define IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK (IRQF_SHARED | __IRQF_TIMER_SIBLING_OK)
> > > >
> > > > The "suspend" part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that really
> > > > only is about sharing an IRQ with a timer and the "your interrupt handler
> > > > may be called when the device is suspended" part is just a consequence of that.
> > >
> > > My rationale was that you didn't really care who else was using the IRQ
> > > (e.g. the timer); you're just stating that you can survive being called
> > > during suspend (which is what the driver may need to check for in the
> > > handler if the device happens to be powered down or whatever).
> > >
> > > So I guess I see it the other way around. This is essentially claiming
> > > we can handle sharing with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND rather than IRQF_TIMER.
> > >
> > > > So IMO it's better to have "TIMER" in the names to avoid encouraging people to
> > > > abuse this for other purposes not related to timers.
> > >
> > > In the end a name is a name, and if you think IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK is
> > > better I shan't complain.
> > >
> > > The fundamental issue I'm concerned with is addressed by this approach.
> >
> > Okay then, is anyone taking care of submitting such a patch (Mark ?) ?
>
> Well, I guess I should take the responsibility for that. :-)
>
> I'll try to cut one later today or tomorrow unless someone else beats me to that.

I won't (I'm done with these irq stuff for now ;-)).

Peter, if this patch is accepted, I guess you'll have to drop (or
revert my patches).

Thanks,

Boris


--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-02-11 17:41    [W:0.135 / U:28.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site