Hello Peter, On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:00:13 +0100 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 11:33:37AM +0100, Boris Brezillon wrote: > > +#ifdef CONFIG_VIRT_IRQ_DEMUX_CHIP > > +/** > > + * struct irq_chip_virt_demux - Dumb demultiplexer irq chip data structure > > s/Dumb/Virtual/ ? > > > + * @domain: irq domain pointer > > + * @available: Bitfield of valid irqs > > + * @unmasked: Bitfield containing irqs status > > + * @flags: irq_virt_demux_flags flags > > + * @src_irq: irq feeding the virt demux chip > > + * > > + * Note, that irq_chip_generic can have multiple irq_chip_type > > + * implementations which can be associated to a particular irq line of > > + * an irq_chip_generic instance. That allows to share and protect > > + * state in an irq_chip_generic instance when we need to implement > > + * different flow mechanisms (level/edge) for it. > > This seems like a copy/paste from struct irq_chip_generic; it seems not > relevant, seeing how irq_chip_virt_demux does not even have an > irq_chip_type pointer list. > > Also, with a demuxer like this, we're bound to whatever flow type its > host is, no? Absolutely, I'll fix the comment by removing those lines. > > > +# Dumb interrupt demuxer chip implementation > > s/Dumb/Virtual/ ? Yep, I'll fix that one too. > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_VIRT_IRQ_DEMUX_CHIP > > +/** > > + * handle_virt_demux_irq - Dumb demuxer irq handle function. > > idem > > > + * @irq: the interrupt number > > + * @desc: the interrupt description structure for this irq > > + * > > + * Dumb demux interrupts are sent from a demultiplexing interrupt handler > > idem > > > + * which is not able to decide which child interrupt handler should be > > + * called. > > + * > > + * Note: The caller is expected to handle the ack, clear, mask and > > + * unmask issues if necessary. > > + */ > > If we're calling multiple handlers, how can they all do this and not > collide? It's the same problem as you noted above: a copy/paste that should have been reworded. I'll remove those lines too. > > Over all it looks good -- in as far as my (admittedly stale IRQ > braincells) go. > > I'll go queue up these bits, if you could send me a delta patch > addressing these 'minor' comment issues? Thanks, I'll send you a patch addressing your comments (it would be great if you could squash it with this patch). Regards, Boris -- Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
