On Friday 16 February 2007 20:52, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 08:45:58PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > We did something like this a few years back on the s390 architecture, which
> > happens to be lucky enough not to share any interrupt based drivers with
> > any of the other architectures.
>
> What you're proposing is looking similar to a proposal I put forward some
> 4 years ago, but was rejected. Maybe times have changed and there's a
> need for it now.
Yes, I think times have changed, with the increased popularity of MSI
and paravirtualized devices. A few points on your old proposal though:
- Doing it per architecture no longer sounds feasible, I think it would
need to be done per subsystem so that the drivers can be adapted to
a new interface, and most drivers are used across multiple architectures.
- struct irq sounds much more fitting than struct irq_desc
- creating new irq_foo() functions to replace foo_irq() also sounds right.
- I don't see the point in splitting request_irq into irq_request and
irq_register.
- doing subsystem specific abstractions ideally allows the drivers to
not even need to worry about the irq pointer, significantly simplifying
the interface for register/unregister.
Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
