[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <527D8A17.9020208@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:04:23 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Vinayak Kale <vkale@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
CC: patches@....com, tglx@...utronix.de, will.deacon@....com,
jcm@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] genirq: arm64: perf: support for percpu pmu interrupt
On 11/06/13 04:07, Vinayak Kale wrote:
> This patch series adds support to handle interrupt registration/deregistration
> in arm64 pmu driver when pmu interrupt type is percpu.
>
> Patches in this patch series were previously sent out as separate patches [1].
> This patch series incorporates comments/fixes suggested for original patches.
>
> [1]
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/205888.html
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-October/204414.html
>
> Vinayak Kale (2):
> genirq: error reporting in request_percpu_irq() and
> request_threaded_irq()
> arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt
>
> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> kernel/irq/manage.c | 12 +++--
> 2 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
What ever happened to the approach here[1]? It doesn't look very nice to
have to request the irq first as a per-cpu interrupt and then try as a
non-percpu interrupt when genirq already knows if its per-cpu or not.
[1] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1207.3/02955.html
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
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