On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 03:38:11PM +0100, Remy Bohmer wrote: > > Hello Daniel, > > > > > * Note: The caller is expected to handle the ack, clear, mask and > > > * unmask issues if necessary. > > > So we shouldn't need any flow control unless there is some other > > > factors.. > > > > This comment can be misinterpreted, I think. Who is assumed to be the > > caller in this context? The 2 other routines in the driver that > > actually do the unmasking stuff besides only calling this routine? Is > > it allowed to call it directly or should it always be done through a > > wrapper that does all these special things? > > The whole point of this simple handler is to accomodate interrupts such > as those found on the Neponset board. > > There, you have a status register in a CPLD but no enable/disable > registers. The status register tells you whether the SA1111, ethernet > or 'USAR' chip asserted its interrupt. > > However, as there is no way to disable the sources, this situation has > to be handled carefully - the function decoding the interrupt source > needs to mask and unmask the _parent_ interrupt itself, and it's > exactly that which the comment is directed towards. > > See neponset_irq_handler(). > > The simple IRQ handler is not meant for anything other than that really > simple implementation. If people have been using it with interrupts > which can be individually masked and unmasked, that's where the bug is. > They should be using one of the other handlers. > Russell, Thanks for the reply and this nice explanation. I'm taking this as a NACK. Daniel or Remy, could you find the offending users and make send patches to fix them. -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
