[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200615204838.GD4447@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2020 21:48:39 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"open list:SPI SUBSYSTEM" <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"maintainer:BROADCOM BCM281XX/BCM11XXX/BCM216XX ARM ARCHITE..."
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
"moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2711/BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Martin Sperl <kernel@...tin.sperl.org>,
Nicolas Saenz Julienne <nsaenzjulienne@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] spi: bcm2835: Enable shared interrupt support
On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:42:50PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Or how about this: we slightly re-structure the interrupt handler such
> that all possible interrupt conditions are explicitly handled and
> terminate with a return IRQ_HANDLED, and those which are not, including
> in the case of a "spurious" (because the interrupt was triggered for
> another SPI controller instance), then we finish the function with
> IRQ_NONE. This would not impact the performance for the BCM2835/36/37
> which would still have a single controller/single interrupt line to handle.
That seems sensible - it's generally a good way to structure interrupt
handlers. It's almost there already.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists