On 11/02/2015 at 12:36:56 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote : > > Actually, that was one of the requirements expressed by Thomas (Thomas, > > correct me if I'm wrong). > > The point was to force shared irq users to explicitly specify that they > > are mixing !IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND because they have no > > other choice. > > > > With your patch, there's no way to inform users that they are > > erroneously setting the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag on one of their shared > > interrupt. > > Sure, but even with the demux that's still the case (because it pretends > that this mismatch is a HW property rather than a property of the set of > drivers sharing the interrupt). > > Whether there's a demux node in the DTB is entirely separate from > whether the drivers can actually handle the situation. > > So if we need a warning in the presence of mismatch and action masking, > we need the exact same warning with the demux. > Actually, we only care about removing the warning. It is effectively the HW that forces us to do so. So we would be completely happy with a new flag to silence the warning as we know what we are doing (I think that has already been suggested). > The presence of a demux implies the DTB author believes they have solved > the problem with the demux, not necessarily that they have considered > the situation and updated drivers appropriately. Relying on the demux to > imply that everything is fine only gives us the illusion that everything > is fine. > Whatever the solution, it could be used as a workaround the warning as this is exactly what we need for our platform. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android 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
