On 25 October 2012 13:56, Hongbo Zhang <hongbo.zh...@linaro.org> wrote:
While replying to mails, don't remove lines like above. They help
identifying who
wrote what.
> [...]
>>> +/* Callback to get temperature changing trend */
>>> +static int db8500_sys_get_trend(struct thermal_zone_device *thermal,
For example, you can't tell who wrote this line...
>>> +static int __devinit db8500_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct db8500_thermal_zone *pzone = NULL;
>>> + struct db8500_thsens_platform_data *ptrips = NULL;
>>> + int low_irq, high_irq, ret = 0;
>>> + unsigned long dft_low, dft_high;
>>> +
>>> + pzone = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pzone), GFP_KERNEL);
>>> + if (!pzone)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + ptrips = db8500_thermal_parse_dt(pdev);
>>
>> This is what u have in this routine at the very first line:
>>
>> if (!np) {
>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Missing device tree data\n");
>>
>> So, you will end up printing this line for every non-DT case. Not good.
>> What u can do is, give preference to normal pdata here.
> I moved this if(!np) into parse_dt function, no problem again.
> (in fact have already done this, but it is missed in this sending)
Sorry couldn't get your point. :(
Can you share diff of latest code in the same mail thread?
>>> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, low_irq, NULL,
>>
>> why threaded irq?
> In fact PRCMU firmware is polling the thermal sensor, and if it meets
> threshold, the PRCMU will write this event into share memory (shared
> between PRCMU and ARM) and trigger an interrupt to ARM.
>
> There may be other events passed via share memory, so it is better to
> handle this kind of irq as fast as possible(it is always the policy),
> and threaded irq satisfies this case better then the traditional one.
Its been long that i prepared for an interview, but i believe purpose
of threaded
irq is something else.
There can be two use cases of request_irq()
- We don't want to sleep from interrupt handler, because we don't need to sleep
for reading hardware's register. And so handler must be called from interrupt
context. We use normal request_irq() here. This is the fastest one.
- We have to sleep from some part of interrupt handler, because we don't have
peripherals register on AMBA bus. But we have it on SPI or I2C bus,
where read/
write to SPI/I2C can potentially sleep. So, we want handler to execute from
process context and so use request_threaded_irq(), i.e. handler will
be called
from a thread. This will surely be slow.
Now in threaded irq case, we can give two handlers, one that must be called
from interrupt context and other that must be called from process context.
Both will be called one by one.
Sorry if i am wrong in my theory :(
@Amit: Am i correct??
Now, the same question again. Are you sure you want threaded irq here.
>>> + prcmu_low_irq_handler, IRQF_NO_SUSPEND | IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>> + "dbx500_temp_low", pzone);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
