[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1165867160.8103.36.camel@imap.mvista.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:59:20 -0800
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH -rt][RESEND] fix preempt hardirqs on OMAP
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 19:54 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > what if the irq got disabled meanwhile? Also, chip->enable is a
> > > compatibility method, not something we should use in a flow handler.
> >
> > I don't know how other arches deal with IRQ_PENDING, but ARM (OMAP at
> > least) disables the IRQ on IRQ_PENDING.
>
> Please point out where it's doing that, and I'll take a look to see
> if it's doing something it shouldn't.
It's in arch/arm/plat-omap/gpio.c . It uses the lowlevel function to
disable the interrupt, not chip->disable() . In gpio_irq_handler() .
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists