On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 08:33 +0100, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: > > > -static void mpic_unmask_ht_irq(unsigned int irq) > > > +static void mpic_unmask_ht_irq(struct irq_data *d) > > > { > > > - struct mpic *mpic = mpic_from_irq(irq); > > > - unsigned int src = mpic_irq_to_hw(irq); > > > + struct mpic *mpic = mpic_from_irq(d->irq); > > > + unsigned int src = mpic_irq_to_hw(d->irq); > > > > It's a bit sad to have a pointerm turn it back to a irq number, > > look it up just to get back the chip data in there :-) > > ACK, how about the below?
Much better. Do you want to fold it in and re-post only the affected patch (es) ? > > Either we should create an mpic_from_irqdata() which itself uses > > irq_data_get_irq_chip_data() or just change mpic_from_irq() if we > > decide we can always call it with "data" instead of "irq" > > There's one site left that needs to go from virq to mpic, so I've > done the former. Ok. > > should be trivial to add. Thomas, what do you reckon ? > > It really shouldn't be looking at the desc at all. > > This should help, as we only look at IRQ_LEVEL here: > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/x86/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=commitdiff;h=876dbd4cc1b35c1a4cb96a2be1d43ea0eabce3b4 Ah yes, indeed. The trigger is all we care about. We can do that in second phase after Thomas stuff goes in. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev