[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vf3HonXDDhN3sbGW2hP-kyRzPjfsSLbDDOj+aQSMjmafA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 18:28:53 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamvor.zhangjian@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Documentation List <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] simulated interrupts
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:19 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
>> > echo 1 >/proc/irq/9/trigger
>> > (or the corresponding /sys/kernel/debug/irq/irqs/ interface if we want to make sure that this
>> > is really not for production use...).
>>
>> or /sys/kernel/irq as a successor of /proc/irq
>
> /sys/kernel/debug/irq/irqs/ is already there and it's DEBUG and not
> something which is in the regular sysfs maze.
Yep. My point was "not to extend /proc/irq interface". From the
description of the series it indeed looks suitable rather for debug.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists