On 07/25/2017 06:29 AM, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonza...@sigmadesigns.com> writes: > >> 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. > > Why would you prefer the less efficient way? >
Same question here, that does not really make sense to me. The whole point of this patch series is to have a set of efficient and bugfree (or nearly) helper functions that drivers can rely on, are you saying that somehow using irq_mask_and_ack is exposing a bug in the tango irqchip driver and using the separate functions does not expose this bug? -- Florian
