Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] irq/irq_sim: add a simple interrupt simulator framework

[Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx>]

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.

>> --- 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.

Thanks,
Bartosz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html