[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=oMXc1YwQcAEfwzgr9QKVCF8kyT3wH2aubYtMYCcJBxviw6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 19:33:13 +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: Re: [Question] Should we make the primary interrupt handler
configurable for regmap_add_irq_chip()?
2014/1/15 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:15:21PM +0800, Yi Zhang wrote:
>
>> 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;
>
> This sounds like something we should just support in the core, though to
Sorry, I'm not clear about this, you mean that this has been supported
in regmap framework?
I searched but didn't find related mail about this, could you please
kindly point out the mail loop?
thanks very much;
> be honest I'd expect the interrupt core to hold a wakelock itself during
> interrupt processing. If we're doing it in regmap then allowing the
> caller to set a wakelock to hold seems better than making them all write
> the code to take and release it.
--
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