On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 13:21, Finn Thain <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 12:53, Finn Thain <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> via1_irq
>> >> OSS_IRQLEV_VIA1 = IRQ_AUTO_6 (on oss) conflict: psc_irq
>> >>
>> >> IRQ_AUTO_1 conflict: iop_ism_irq
>>
>> >> iop_ism_irq
>> >> OSS_IRQLEV_IOPISM = 1 = IRQ_AUTO_1 (on oss) conflict: via1_irq
>> >
>> > via1_irq is remapped to IRQ_AUTO_6 on OSS.
>>
>> According to via_register_interrupts(), it requests both:
>>
>> if (via_alt_mapping) {
>> if (request_irq(IRQ_AUTO_1, via1_irq, 0, "software",
>> (void *)via1))
>> pr_err("Couldn't register %s interrupt\n",
>> "software");
>> if (request_irq(IRQ_AUTO_6, via1_irq, 0, "via1", (void
>> *)via1))
>> pr_err("Couldn't register %s interrupt\n", "via1");
>> } else {
>> if (request_irq(IRQ_AUTO_1, via1_irq, 0, "via1", (void
>> *)via1))
>> pr_err("Couldn't register %s interrupt\n", "via1");
>> }
>>
>> Hence IRQ_AUTO_1 must be shared and we cannot use an optimized chain
>> handler for via1_irq()
>
> I'm pretty sure that the "software" request_irq can be removed. It has
> come up before --
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-mac68k&m=110973724208746&w=2
>
> Maybe Brad can shed some light on this (?)
>
> I've just cloned and built your m68k-genirq branch. I will run some tests.
Thanks!
>> nor iop_ism_irq().
>
> via_register_interrupts() is not called on OSS.
You're right, I missed that.
>> This is the only remaining conflict I see.
Good, I'll convert them all to chain handlers.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [email protected]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-m68k" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
