[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1268218832.11737.68575.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:00:32 +0000
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...abs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: move some interrupt arch_* functions into struct
irq_chip.
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 10:55 +0000, ijc@...lion.org.uk wrote:
>
> arch_init_chip_data cannot be moved into struct irq_chip at this time
> because irq_desc->chip is not known at the time the irq_desc is
> setup. For now rename arch_init_chip_data to arch_init_irq_desc (for
> PowerPC, the only other user, whose usage better matches the new name)
> and on x86 convert arch_init_chip_data to ioapic_init_chip_data and
> call this whenever the IO APIC code allocates a new IRQ.
One idea I had to improve this was to add a struct irq_chip * as a
parameter to irq_to_desc_alloc_node. The new parameter potentially could
be NULL for current behaviour. Does that sound like a reasonable
approach?
Ian.
--
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