[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110607172211.GF17754@ponder.secretlab.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 11:22:11 -0600
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya-linux@....okisemi.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alexander.stein@...tec-electronic.com, qi.wang@...el.com,
yong.y.wang@...el.com, toshiharu-linux@....okisemi.com,
kok.howg.ewe@...el.com, joel.clark@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RESEND]: RE: [PATCH v2 3/3] pch_gpio: support interrupt function
On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 03:00:48PM +0900, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote:
> Hi Grant,
>
> Let me resend again.
> I haven't received your answer the following my question yet.
>
> On Friday, May 27, 2011 4:09 PM, Grant Likely wrote:
> > Take a look at the new irq_chip_generic infrastructure. You don't
> > need to implement a memory mapped irq controller from scratch anymore.
> > Most of the access functions can be taken directly from
> > irq_chip_generic instead.
>
> Let me clarify your saying.
> a) We shouldn't use request_irq( ) ?
> b) Does Your "irq_chip_generic" mean irq_set_handler_data( ) /
> irq_set_chained_handler( ) ?
> If yes, Using these functions, I saw IRQ shared other function's
> interrupt becomes invalid.
>
No, I'm saying that you don't need to implement new irq_chip
operations if you use the new irq_chip_generic implementation.
g.
--
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