On 14 August 2017 17:54:22 GMT+08:00, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >2017-08-12 13:43 GMT+02:00 Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 16:50:26 +0200 >> Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Implement a simple, irq_work-based framework for simulating >>> interrupts. Currently the API exposes routines for initializing and >>> deinitializing the simulator object, enqueueing the interrupts and >>> retrieving the allocated interrupt numbers based on the offset of >the >>> dummy interrupt in the simulator struct. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> >> Looks good to me. >> >> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Only tiny thing is the lack of a specified license for the code... > >I'll send a v3 with license added. > >> + checkpatch is warning about wrong file mode... >> #105: >> new file mode 100644 >> >> Though I have no idea why... >> > >I think this only says that a file was created with given mode, it's >not a warning. The actual warning is about missing a new entry in >MAINTAINERS. Doh, how did I miss that! > >>> --- a/init/Kconfig >>> +++ b/init/Kconfig >>> @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@ config CONSTRUCTORS >>> config IRQ_WORK >>> bool >>> >>> +config IRQ_SIM >>> + bool >> You could make this tristate, but then the handling of the >> users would get complex so perhaps given it's so small boolean >> is the way to go. >> > >Nah, irq_work is built-in to at even greater size. Let's just leave it >like this, especially when only testing modules select it. > Fair enough. >Thanks, >Bartosz -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
