Hi Andy, >> >> >> + if (irq == data->irqs[0]) >> >> >> + get_reg_offset = &rtd_gpio_gpa_offset; >> >> >> + else if (irq == data->irqs[1]) >> >> >> + get_reg_offset = &rtd_gpio_gpda_offset; >> >> > >> >> >Can't it be done before entering into chained IRQ handler? >> >> >> >> I will revise it. >> > >> >Thinking about this more, perhaps you can register two IRQ chips with >> >different functions, so this won't be part of the very critical >> >interrupt handler (as we all want to reduce overhead in it as much as >possible). >> >Anyway, think about this and try different options, choose the one >> >you think the best. >> >> In the previous patch (v1), I had registered two IRQ chips with >> different handlers. However, these two handlers appeared quite similar >> and the gpio_irq_chip only allows the registration of a single >> handler. Therefore, I ended up registering one handler for both IRQs >> and included conditional checks within the handler to differentiate between >the two. > >What is the performance impact that you have that condition in the interrupt >handler? > I believe the performance impact is minimal since this conditional check is a simple operation aimed at retrieving the corresponding offset of the interrupt status registers. Or is there something I might not have considered? Thanks, Tzuyi Chang
