[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1512081153410.3595@nanos>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 11:54:11 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
cc: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Fix regression introduced by set_irq_flags()
removal
On Tue, 8 Dec 2015, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> When a device driver uses a normal (non per-CPU) interrupt, then it
> doesn't have to take care of disabling the interrupt on suspend and
> re-enabling the interrupt on resume at the interrupt controller level.
> This is all transparently handled by the irqchip driver.
>
> Why should the handling of per-CPU interrupts be different and require
> explicit handling from each device driver rather than being
> transparently handled by the irqchip driver ?
Fair enough. Did not think about the boot cpu part.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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