Hi,
* Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061211 11:41]:
> On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 20:05 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > + /*
> > > + * Some boards will disable an interrupt when it
> > > + * sets IRQ_PENDING . So we have to remove the flag
> > > + * and re-enable to handle it.
> > > + */
> > > + if (desc->status & IRQ_PENDING) {
> > > + desc->status &= ~IRQ_PENDING;
> > > + if (desc->chip)
> > > + desc->chip->enable(irq);
> > > + goto restart;
> > > + }
> >
> > what if the irq got disabled meanwhile? Also, chip->enable is a
> > compatibility method, not something we should use in a flow handler.
>
> I don't know how other arches deal with IRQ_PENDING, but ARM (OMAP at
> least) disables the IRQ on IRQ_PENDING. The problem is that by threading
> the IRQ we take some control away from the low level code, which needs
> to be replaced.
>
> I'm open to potentially removing the irq disable()->enable() cycle on
> IRQ_PENDING if it's only done on OMAP. My feeling is that it's in other
> ARM's which would make that change more invasive, but I haven't actually
> researched that.
Hmm, I wonder if this is just legacy left over from earlier when
set_irq_type() was used and the flags not passed with request_irq().
This was causing some omap gpio interrupts to trigger immediately
after request_irq().
Regards,
Tony
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
