linux-kernel - [Question] Should we make the primary interrupt handler configurable for regmap_add_irq

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAK=oMXebE=OKzGbaRH_baOvRyhPXnw0MZuRrcZYLpeR73=XdqA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:15:21 +0800
From:	Yi Zhang <yizhang.mrvl@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	Yi Zhang <yizhang@...vell.com>, hongfeng@...vell.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhouqiao@...vell.com
Subject: [Question] Should we make the primary interrupt handler configurable
 for regmap_add_irq_chip()?

Hi, Mark:

Sorry to trouble you;
I have a question about the regmap_add_irq_chip():
at present, we use the default primary interrupt handler to handle the
parent interrupt from a mfd device;

I met a scenario:
As soon as the interrupt is triggered, a wakelock is needed to be held
until the threaded handler finishes,
I think we may hold it in the primary interrupt handler, but now it's
NULL by default;

so could we make the the primary interrupt handler configurable? for
example, add a parameter to regmap_add_irq_chip(),
then the user can choose to use current solution or his/her own handler;

what do you think?
could you please share your opinion?

thanks very much;
--
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/