2014/1/15 Mark Brown <broo...@kernel.org>: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:15:21PM +0800, Yi Zhang wrote: > >> I met a scenario: >> As soon as the interrupt is triggered, a wakelock is needed to be held >> until the threaded handler finishes, >> I think we may hold it in the primary interrupt handler, but now it's >> NULL by default; > > This sounds like something we should just support in the core, though to Sorry, I'm not clear about this, you mean that this has been supported in regmap framework? I searched but didn't find related mail about this, could you please kindly point out the mail loop? thanks very much;
> be honest I'd expect the interrupt core to hold a wakelock itself during > interrupt processing. If we're doing it in regmap then allowing the > caller to set a wakelock to hold seems better than making them all write > the code to take and release it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
