[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54734481.1020901@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 22:45:21 +0800
From: "Yun Wu (Abel)" <wuyun.wu@...wei.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
"Grant Likely" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
Yijing Wang <wangyijing@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/16] irqdomain: Introduce new interfaces to support
hierarchy irqdomains
On 2014/11/24 22:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2014, Yun Wu (Abel) wrote:
>> On 2014/11/24 21:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> In the hierarchical case we do not touch the hardware in the
>>> allocation step, so we need to activate the allocated interrupt in the
>>> hardware before we can use it. And that's clearly a domain interface
>>> not a irq chip issue.
>>>
>>
>> Makes sense, now the interrupt domain seems to be the best place.
>> And when the @domain parameter can be really useful? I haven't see
>> anyone using it so far.
>
> All irqdomain callbacks take the domain pointer as their first
> parameter. So for consistency sake we made it that way.
>
> You can argue in circles about whether the domain argument could be
> removed. It's going to stay for now as it does not matter at all.
>
Yes, you are right.
Thanks,
Abel
--
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