On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 09:40:03AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > What I'd expect to see from a conversion like this would be
> > that most of
> > the locking/IRQ management stuff would be dropped
> I'd expect that genirq solve all the issues and
> that its support be used. That's not the same
--- On Tue, 12/28/10, Mark Brown wrote:
> F
> You shouldn't need this any more; the driver used to be
> faffing around
> with this because it wasn't using genirq for
> this in the past.
Originally it couldn't, since genirq didn't
support threaded IRQ handling...
...
>
> Simiarly here as fa
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:46:17PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:59:49PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
+ disable_irq_nosync(irq);
You shouldn't need this any more; the driver used to be faffing around
with this because it wasn't using genirq for this in the past.
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 03:59:49PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> + disable_irq_nosync(irq);
You shouldn't need this any more; the driver used to be faffing around
with this because it wasn't using genirq for this in the past.
> + for (i = 0; sts.int_sts; sts.int_sts >>= 1, i++) {
> +
... and while at that, also start using
handle_nested_irq() as we should.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi
---
drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c | 141 -
1 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c b/drivers/mfd/twl60