Hi Peter, On Tuesday 30 September 2008, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> > I see your patch 68d7477caca19c0b52b5d4e85700cd3e6115577f created > > pwrirq.c as a separate file and thread. > > I guess choose this solution because it was similar to the GPIO IRQs. > Originally, this was 1 shared IRQ. But I wanted to change this to avoid > every driver having to read PWR_ISR1 and clear his interrupt. This saves > some i2c transactions. Right; modularization is appropriate. Although it doesn't seem to have hit all the TWL "subchips" yet ... :) > > I'm wondering if there's any particular reason that "bank" of > > interrupts shouldn't be handled directly by twl4030-core, and > > even by the same IRQ handling thread. > > > > I don't think so. > > > As it stands now the TWL "core" is not especially core-ish in > > this respect, and I'd like to see that be resolved (e.g. by a > > patch I'll probably write this afternoon) before this code > > goes to mainline ... > > Ok. Good. Thanks for the sanity check. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
