On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 14:58 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Thinking further we should even provide some infrastructure for that > > in the common code which would handle the completion and attach it to > > the interrupts in question, so the driver authors would not have to > > deal with that at all. They just would return from thread_fn and let > > the generic code deal with the notification. The notification has to > > be set up by the interrupt controller code. That way you can use the > > same device driver code w/o knowledge of the interrupt controller > > implementation it is attached to. > > Wouldn't it be better if we could express the nesting property from > within genirq, so that we can do things like: > > register_chip_nested(parent_chip, parent_irq, slave_chip); > > And let genirq set-up the needed magic to make the nesting work. Good point. > Also, how important is it that subhandler1..n run in their own thread? > That is, can't we let them run from the thread that is otherwise waiting > for the completino anyway? In those cases I suspect we can do that. I guess there can be async handling as well: the main handler queries the pending interrupts, masks them, wakes the handlers and returns. No wait for all threads to finish necessary before unmasking the main interrupt line. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
