On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 11:38:28AM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> 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.
Please point out where it's doing that, and I'll take a look to see
if it's doing something it shouldn't.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-
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/
