[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49A92487.3020108@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:48:23 +0100
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, me@...ipebalbi.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
felipe.balbi@...ia.com, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
sameo@...nedhand.com, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: lockdep and threaded IRQs
David Brownell wrote:
> Now, where is that being set up as being threaded? I
> referenced that a message or two earlier:
>
> drivers/mfd/twl4030-irq.c
>
> Where you'll observe twl_init_irq() at line 688 setting
> up the thread and the Primary IRQ Handler (PIH) dispatch.
> That's pretty much bog-standard chained IRQ setup code,
> except that it chains through a thread.
>
> When an IRQ comes in, handle_twl4030_pih() acks and masks
> that top level IRQ. Then it wakes twl4030_irq_thread(),
> which issues I2C operations to read the IRQ status from
> the chip ... first PIH to find out which SIH modules are
> raising an IRQ, then SIH to dispatch that status. Then
> handle_irq() from that thread to invoke the handler in
> that thread context; it will issue more I2C ops.
>
> And the lockdep thing kicks in through handle_irq(),
> where the IRQ handler wrongly gets invoked with the
> IRQs disabled -- iff lockdep is enabled. Otherwise,
> that IRQ thread is just like any other thread.
Ah, so there /is/ a threaded IRQ handler implementation in the mainline,
down in some driver framework...
Why don't these drivers simply use <linux/workqueue.h>?
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--= --=- ===--
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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