On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 17:18 +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > I don't think you can, "active" is not well defined. Other code may have > done nothing other than create the mapping and remembered the virq, > which will break if you destroy the mapping. Or?
Active as in "requested". Yes there's a potential problems with multiple requests for mappings & shared interrupts. This is not a problem for PCI on powerpc because we don't free those mappings afaik. > I agree refcounting is not fun. It'll end up with the same mess as > of_node_get/put() where practically every 2nd piece of code leaks > references. > > I guess we can't go the other way, and say that mapping the same hwirq > twice is an error. Might be worth it, and force the sharing case to be handled at some kind of upper level (bus or platform). Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
