On 25/07/2017 15:16, Måns Rullgård wrote: > What happened to the patch adding the proper combined function?
It appears you're not CCed on v2. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9859799/ Doug wrote: > Yes, you understand correctly. The irq_mask_ack method is entirely > optional and I assume that is why this issue went undetected for so > long; however, it is slightly more efficient to combine the functions > (even if the ack is unnecessary) which is why I chose to do so for my > changes to the irqchip-brcmstb-l2 driver where I first discovered this > issue. How much value the improved efficiency has is certainly > debatable, but interrupt handling is one area where people might care > about such a small difference. As the irqchip-tango driver maintainer > you are welcome to decide whether or not the irq_mask_ack method makes > sense to you. My preference goes to leaving the irq_mask_ack callback undefined, and let the irqchip framework use irq_mask and irq_ack instead. Regards.
