On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 12:25:37PM +0530, Rabin Vincent wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 18:51:42 +0200, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 01:05:51PM +0530, Sundar Iyer wrote:
> > > + ret = request_threaded_irq(info->irq_dbr, NULL, ab8500_ponkey_handler,
> > > + 0, "ab8500-ponkey-dbr", info);
> > > + if (ret < 0) {
> > > + dev_err(ab8500->dev, "Failed to request dbr IRQ#%d: %d\n",
> > > + info->irq_dbr, ret);
> > > + goto out_irq_dbf;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > Why threaded IRQs? The interrupt handlers do not do _anything_ except for
> > passing the event up. Do you really think that starting 2 kernel threads
> > to handle 1 button is the best use of the resources???
>
> Because the parent MFD uses nested threads for handling interrupts, you
> must specify a thread function. No new thread is started; this
> interrupt handler is called from the parent MFD's interrupt thread.
>
I see.
> >
> > I'll change it to use normal interrupts locally, no need to resubmit.
>
> Changing it to request_irq() will cause it to fail, because __setup_irq
> will error out if this is a nested thread interrupt and no interrupt
> thread is specified. request_any_context_irq() should work, if you
> would like to get rid of explicitly asking for a threaded irq.
>
OK, request_any_context_irq() it is then.
--
Dmitry
--
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
