On Fri, 2017-03-31 at 21:54 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > That previous patch works for me too (and even simplifies my driver > > somewhat), > > if you like it better I can go back to that. But thinking more about > > this > > I decided that having a "dear i2c-core please don't try to out-smart > > the > > driver, leave irq handling to me" flag would be better / more > > generally > > useful. > > I agree. The last sentence made me understand that you want to flag > "this driver wants custom irq handling" more than "this driver does > not > use irq" what I misinterpreted before. Latest Hans' explanation gets it clear to me either. > This is a much broader use case > and we can probably help more people with that. I like it. Maybe we > should name the flag something like "custom_irq_handling" to prevent > similar misunderstandings? Just an idea. I would go with custom_irq_resource (or custom_irq_mapping). IRQ handling sounds a bit confusing (do the core handles interrupts on behalf of my device?). -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
