[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150721213625.GO24125@google.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 14:36:25 -0700
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@...il.com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: add chip_{suspend,resume} PM support to
irq_chip
Hi Florian, Thomas,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:24:29AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> On 20/06/15 07:11, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Brian Norris wrote:
...
> > I really don't want to set a precedent for random (*foo)(*bar)
> > callbacks.
> >
> >> +
> >> + if (ct->chip.chip_suspend)
> >> + ct->chip.chip_suspend(gc);
> >
> > So wouldn't it be the more intuitive solution to make this a callback
> > in the struct gc itself?
>
> Brian can correct me, but his approach is more generic, if there is
> another irqchip driver needing a similar infrastructure, this would be
> already there, and directly usable. Maybe all we need to is to change
> the chip_suspend/resume arguments to pass a reference to irq_chip instead?
I believe Thomas is right. We could just make these into
irq_chip_generic callbacks, which would probably be the right
abstraction level. Wouldn't be much code change from this submission,
AFAICT.
(Sorry for dropping the ball on this one.)
Brian
--
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