On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence specifying > > if the interrupt type is a timer. > > > > Add a function request_percpu_irq_flags() where we can specify the flags. The > > request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to > > request_percpu_irq_flags() passing a zero flag parameter. > > And exactly this change wants to be a separate patch. We do not make whole > sale changes this way. You should know that already and someone pointed > that out to you in some of the earlier versions. > > > -int request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > - const char *devname, void __percpu *dev_id) > > +int request_percpu_irq_flags(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > The function name sucks. The first time I read it, it meant request the per > cpu irq flags, which is not what you aim at, right? > > Please make that __request_percpu_irq() for now and on -rc1 time provide a > patch set to convert all current request_percpu_irq() users to have the > extra argument and then remove the __request_percpu_irq() intermediate. Ok, I will the change this way. What about 2/3 and 3/3? Is it possible to take them with the __request_percpu_irq change? -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
