[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090624133558.GB14577@localhost>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:35:58 +0300
From: Imre Deak <imre.deak@...ia.com>
To: "Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Krzysztof Helt <krzysztof.h1@...zta.fm>,
Antonino Daplas <adaplas@...il.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
"Valkeinen Tomi (Nokia-D/Helsinki)" <Tomi.Valkeinen@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 16/20] omapfb: dispc: Allow multiple external IRQ
handlers
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 02:16:08PM +0200, Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki) wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 01:33:41PM +0200, Deak Imre (Nokia-D/Helsinki) wrote:
> > From: Daniel Stone <daniel.stone@...ia.com>
> >
> > Previously, the only external (to dispc.c) IRQ handler was RFBI's
> > frame done handler. dispc's IRQ framework was very dumb: you could only
> > have one handler, and the semantics of {request,free}_irq were odd, to
> > say the least.
> >
> > The new framework allows multiple consumers to register arbitrary IRQ
> > masks.
>
> No chance to use genirq ?
>
> Then rfbi and others could simply request_irq() as usual
The problem with that is that we want to register handlers to take
care of - possibly - multiple interrupt events. We do this by passing
a mask of events to our IRQ register function, that the handler should
be called for.
With the current genirq interface this is not possible, thus we
need our own implementation.
--Imre
--
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