[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1r5nsjdsh.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:18:38 -0800
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
"x86\@kernel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev\@ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irq: move some interrupt arch_* functions into struct irq_chip.
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com> writes:
> 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?
I don't follow why we have the restriction that irq_to_desc_alloc_node
must call arch_init_chip_data. Assuming that requirement to call arch_init_chip_data
is valid, passing something into init_one_irq_desc seems appropriate.
Eric
--
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