From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: viresh.kumar@st.com (Viresh KUMAR) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:25:44 +0530 Subject: QUERY: How to handle sharing of interrupt between different peripherals. In-Reply-To: <1b68c6791003142350t1a671bf0k4777d8d4df8c5ab7@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B9DB99A.5040104@st.com> <1b68c6791003142218q24fd8516id75d6964201da3f2@mail.gmail.com> <4B9DD766.7010504@st.com> <1b68c6791003142350t1a671bf0k4777d8d4df8c5ab7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B9DD9F0.60603@st.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 3/15/2010 12:20 PM, jassi brar wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Viresh KUMAR wrote: >> On 3/15/2010 10:48 AM, jassi brar wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 1:37 PM, Viresh KUMAR wrote: >>>> In our SOC (SPEArxxx), we have few peripherals which share common interrupt >>>> line. >>> how about set_irq_chained_handler ? >> >> I think it is not for this purpose. Better to use IRQF_SHARED in normal >> request_irq. what do you say? > Of course, that is preferred if possible, as Ben already suggested. > Btw, is your case not similar to having a common UART interrupt for > Uart-Rx,Tx,Err irq ? > We are now discussing two different things i suppose. First: We have a common line for all type interrupts on UART. This is handled well by the drivers (say - amba-pl011.c), and so we don't really have a issue here. Second: Now UART, SDIO, SPI, I2S all have a common interrupt line, this is what we need to handle. For this IRQF_SHARED is a better way.