Steve Rossi wrote:
> Thanks for your followup Dan. I've got a rather straightforward "dumb"
> approach
> to fixing this problem - see the patch below.
Looks pretty good. My last concern is the way we overload the semantics of
the functions depending upon a driver requesting the service and the interrupt
controller using these functions. For example, a driver will request to
enable or disable one particular interrupt, while the interrupt handling
functions
will need to honor the priority, as you have added. Allowing a driver request
to affect the priority mask may not be appropriate.
Thanks for the effort understanding the problem and finding a solution that
works for you. It appears to be "more right" than it was :-).
-- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
