... and while at that, also start using
handle_nested_irq() as we should.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi ba...@ti.com
---
drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c | 141 -
1 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:59:49PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
+ disable_irq_nosync(irq);
You shouldn't need this any more; the driver used to be faffing around
with this because it wasn't using genirq for this in the past.
+ for (i = 0; sts.int_sts; sts.int_sts = 1, i++) {
+
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:46:17PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:59:49PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
+ disable_irq_nosync(irq);
You shouldn't need this any more; the driver used to be faffing around
with this because it wasn't using genirq for this in the
--- On Tue, 12/28/10, Mark Brown broo...@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com wrote:
F
You shouldn't need this any more; the driver used to be
faffing around
with this because it wasn't using genirq for
this in the past.
Originally it couldn't, since genirq didn't
support threaded IRQ handling...
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 09:40:03AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
What I'd expect to see from a conversion like this would be
that most of
the locking/IRQ management stuff would be dropped
I'd expect that genirq solve all the issues and
that its support be used. That's not the same
as
