[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAVeFuJ4B37YgvTBctXqmtWJtg3b19PDt1EEZF5Rc6KVXZzUtw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:08:38 +0900
From: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
To: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>,
daniel.baluta@...el.com, laurentiu.palcu@...el.com,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 3/4] gpiolib: add irq_not_threaded flag to gpio_chip
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 11:48 PM, Octavian Purdila
<octavian.purdila@...el.com> wrote:
> Some GPIO chips (e.g. the DLN2 USB adapter) have blocking get/set
> operation but do not need a threaded irq handler.
Sorry if you already explained this (I have been a little bit late
with the GPIO reviews recently), but does this optimization bring a
significant benefit that justifies adding another field in struct
gpio_chip? If so it would be nice to have it in the commit message. If
not, do we need this at all?
--
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