+сс Arnd Bergmann Вторник, 4 марта 2014, 16:46 +01:00 от Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Alexander Shiyan wrote: > > > Вторник, 4 марта 2014, 12:05 +01:00 от Thomas Gleixner > > <t...@linutronix.de>: > > > On Sat, 1 Mar 2014, Alexander Shiyan wrote: > > > > > > > This will allow to use dummy IRQ handler no_action() from > > > > drivers compiled as module. For example, dummy handler is could > > > > be used for drivers that use ARM FIQ interrupts. > > > > > > And why exactly requires a driver which uses ARM FIQ interrupts the > > > no_action implementation? > > > > > FIQ Interrupt handler is not used in this function. In FIQ case this > > is just a dummy declaration. Real handler is assigned by using the > > set_fiq_handler(). > > Why do you need a dummy declaration at all? > > set_fiq_handler() is completely detached from the generic interrupt > subsystem.
Some limitations of hardware, such as bit interleaving for normal and FIQ interrupts for mask/status registers, led to the implement single driver for interrupt handling. As a result, all interrupts can be described equally, and single mechanism is used for the request/free and enable/disable. Correct me if I'm wrong. Driver that implements it, resent several times and expect comments within 3 months [1], you are the only one person, Thomas, specified as maintainer for this subsystem. I repeat, if I'm wrong in the implementation, let's fix this. [1]: http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=139132855024699 Thanks. --- N�����r��y����b�X��ǧv�^�){.n�+����{����zX����ܨ}���Ơz�&j:+v�������zZ+��+zf���h���~����i���z� �w���?�����&�)ߢf��^jǫy�m��@A�a��� 0��h���i
