Hi David, On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 02:17:12PM -0700, ext David Brownell wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I see your patch 68d7477caca19c0b52b5d4e85700cd3e6115577f created > pwrirq.c as a separate file and thread. > I guess choose this solution because it was similar to the GPIO IRQs. Originally, this was 1 shared IRQ. But I wanted to change this to avoid every driver having to read PWR_ISR1 and clear his interrupt. This saves some i2c transactions. > I'm wondering if there's any particular reason that "bank" of > interrupts shouldn't be handled directly by twl4030-core, and > even by the same IRQ handling thread. > I don't think so. > As it stands now the TWL "core" is not especially core-ish in > this respect, and I'd like to see that be resolved (e.g. by a > patch I'll probably write this afternoon) before this code > goes to mainline ... Ok. Good. Cheers, Peter. -- goa is a state of mind -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
