On 20/06/2017 22:29, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> 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? > > The rest looks ok. Please repost. Ok, thanks. -- <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
