[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7hioka4dv7.fsf@deeprootsystems.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:10:04 -0700
From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
rjw@...ysocki.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Lina Iyer <lina.iyer@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] irq: Allow multiple clients to register for irq affinity notification
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 11:29:56AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2014, Kevin Hilman wrote:
>> > Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe we're just lucky and nobody uses
>> > them together, but irq_set_affinity_notifier() only allows a single
>> > notifier to be registered at any given time. So if you had a system
>>
>> A single notifier per irq .....
>
> So what about two drivers wanting to use this notifier, but sharing an
> interrupt?
>
> It sounds to me like this notifier was misdesigned from the very start,
> and it should always have supported multiple notifiers.
I agree.
$SUBJECT patch tries to add that support, and is part of a series
wanting to use these notifiers in the PM QoS subsystem, while at the
same time not breaking existing users.
I suppose this series could be written without $SUBJECT patch, and
crossing fingers in the hopes that an existing user of the notifiers
doesn't also need to use the pm_qos constraints, but that seems like
knowingly leaving an armed landmine laying around.
Kevin
--
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