[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200313121138.GA5985@afzalpc>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 17:41:38 +0530
From: afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@...il.com>
To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
Cc: Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
Keguang Zhang <keguang.zhang@...il.com>,
Huacai Chen <chenhc@...ote.com>,
John Crispin <john@...ozen.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] MIPS: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()
Hi Thomas,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 10:02:49PM +0530, afzal mohammed wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 05:03:07PM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> > case ? I guess using handler as dev_id does a better job here.
> > And before doing that, lets clean up some of the IRQF_SHARED usage first.
> > All sni IRQF_SHARED can go away, the interrupt lines are exclusive there.
> >
> > loongson2ef/lemote-2f/irq.c: looks like the only user of
> > LOONGSON_NORTH_BRIDGE_IRQ, so IRQF_SHARED could go as well.
> > Could someone confirm that ?
> >
> > All other need to stay, IMHO.
i am thinking of sending a new patch, with,
1) IRQF_SHARED removed from sni/{a20r.c,pcit.c,rm200.c}
2) IRQF_SHARED kept in,
kernel/cevt-r4k.c
dec/setup.c
pmcs-msp71xx/msp-time.c
loongson2ef/lemote-2f/irq.c
and use handler as dev_id in those
Let me know if you have any other thoughts.
Regards
afzal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists