Hi Felipe,
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 02:07:01PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: [snip] > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Fenkart <[email protected]> > > > --- > > Patch is incomplete and still confusing ;-) if some one reads the > > patch without the thread. I think you have already ask the question/ > > suggestion in past but its better to split masking/disabling functions > > and make them behave properly. Mapping enable/disable to mask/unmask > > to get around the issue seems more of a hack. > > right, specially since IRQ susystem will already do that for > irq_enable(): > > kernel/irq/chip.c::irq_enable() > > 192 void irq_enable(struct irq_desc *desc) > 193 { > 194 irq_state_clr_disabled(desc); > 195 if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_enable) > 196 desc->irq_data.chip->irq_enable(&desc->irq_data); > 197 else > 198 desc->irq_data.chip->irq_unmask(&desc->irq_data); > 199 irq_state_clr_masked(desc); > 200 } > > In fact this patch shouldn't be necessary if only IRQ subsystem would do > the same for irq_disable() (though it doesn't and I haven't fully read > the code you to understand why, however there's definitely a reason): > > 202 void irq_disable(struct irq_desc *desc) > 203 { > 204 irq_state_set_disabled(desc); > 205 if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_disable) { > 206 desc->irq_data.chip->irq_disable(&desc->irq_data); > 207 irq_state_set_masked(desc); > 208 } > 209 } I started some other thread over here: [PATCH] genirq: use irq_mask as fallback for irq_disable. https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/19/229 /Andi -- 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
