[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150210162017.0882cb77@bbrezillon>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:20:17 +0100
From: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/5] irqchip: add virtual demultiplexer
implementation
Hello Peter,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:00:13 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:33:37AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_VIRT_IRQ_DEMUX_CHIP
> > +/**
> > + * struct irq_chip_virt_demux - Dumb demultiplexer irq chip data structure
>
> s/Dumb/Virtual/ ?
>
> > + * @domain: irq domain pointer
> > + * @available: Bitfield of valid irqs
> > + * @unmasked: Bitfield containing irqs status
> > + * @flags: irq_virt_demux_flags flags
> > + * @src_irq: irq feeding the virt demux chip
> > + *
> > + * Note, that irq_chip_generic can have multiple irq_chip_type
> > + * implementations which can be associated to a particular irq line of
> > + * an irq_chip_generic instance. That allows to share and protect
> > + * state in an irq_chip_generic instance when we need to implement
> > + * different flow mechanisms (level/edge) for it.
>
> This seems like a copy/paste from struct irq_chip_generic; it seems not
> relevant, seeing how irq_chip_virt_demux does not even have an
> irq_chip_type pointer list.
>
> Also, with a demuxer like this, we're bound to whatever flow type its
> host is, no?
Absolutely, I'll fix the comment by removing those lines.
>
> > +# Dumb interrupt demuxer chip implementation
>
> s/Dumb/Virtual/ ?
Yep, I'll fix that one too.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_VIRT_IRQ_DEMUX_CHIP
> > +/**
> > + * handle_virt_demux_irq - Dumb demuxer irq handle function.
>
> idem
>
> > + * @irq: the interrupt number
> > + * @desc: the interrupt description structure for this irq
> > + *
> > + * Dumb demux interrupts are sent from a demultiplexing interrupt handler
>
> idem
>
> > + * which is not able to decide which child interrupt handler should be
> > + * called.
> > + *
> > + * Note: The caller is expected to handle the ack, clear, mask and
> > + * unmask issues if necessary.
> > + */
>
> If we're calling multiple handlers, how can they all do this and not
> collide?
It's the same problem as you noted above: a copy/paste that should have
been reworded.
I'll remove those lines too.
>
> Over all it looks good -- in as far as my (admittedly stale IRQ
> braincells) go.
>
> I'll go queue up these bits, if you could send me a delta patch
> addressing these 'minor' comment issues?
Thanks, I'll send you a patch addressing your comments (it would be
great if you could squash it with this patch).
Regards,
Boris
--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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