RE: [RFC/PATCH 2/4] input: misc: twl4030: move torequest_threaded_irq

[Shilimkar, Santosh]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felipe Balbi [mailto:felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 5:10 PM
> To: Shilimkar, Santosh
> Cc: Balbi Felipe (Nokia-D/Helsinki); linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Linux OMAP Mailing List; Tony
> Lindgren; Koskinen Aaro (Nokia-D/Helsinki); David Brownell; Linux USB Mailing List; Anton Vorontsov;
> Grazvydas Ignotas; Chikkature Rajashekar, Madhusudhan; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Mark Brown; Samuel Ortiz
> Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/4] input: misc: twl4030: move to request_threaded_irq
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 12:31:11PM +0100, ext Shilimkar, Santosh wrote:
> >In whole of the series the ISR you have converted to threads using threaded_irq are very
> >small in size. They are like quick_change_handlers. So only advantage is the particular
> >interrupt is masked for bit longer than with you change.
> >
> >I might be wrong here but it might introduce the spurious IRQ's because
> >of bit of delay in the processing.What is the motive for this change ?
> >Are we using this API as it suppose to be ?
> 
> the irq chip is connected through i2c and that mandate us to handle irqs
> in thread context. Now that we have kernel-wise api for that, we're just
> moving towards it instead of definint our own stuff and the lockdep
> shortcuts we had to put before.
OK. I see your point now.

Regards,
Santosh 



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/