On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <b...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 23:46 -0600, Grant Likely wrote: >> From: Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> >> >> prototype implementation. This probably doesn't work at all right now. >> >> Ben, I'm posting this now to get your thoughts before I go too far down >> this path. > > Looks ok. I was initially thinking about putting get_irq() in irq_host, > but as we discussed on IRC, a host is not necessarily a PIC, and it's > nice for the parent to have a way to setup/init the cascade in case > it needs to do some HW tweaking there as well.
Cool. Thanks for the review. I'll continue on with this approach and hopefully get something working this weekend. > However, why cascade_setup() and not setup_cascade() which sounds > somewhat more natural ? :-) I'm a reverse polish kind of guy. I preferring 'subject'_'action' over 'action'_'subject' just because it groups like subjects together. But it doesn't matter much, especially in this case where 'subject' is in a group of exactly 1. :-) I'll do whichever you prefer. g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
