From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sshtylyov@mvista.com (Sergei Shtylyov) Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 16:11:40 +0300 Subject: [PATCH 3/6] ARM: tegra: update GPIO chained IRQ handler to use EOI in parent chip In-Reply-To: <1298900022-21516-4-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> References: <1298900022-21516-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1298900022-21516-4-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> Message-ID: <4D6CF08C.6030109@ru.mvista.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello. On 28-02-2011 16:33, Will Deacon wrote: > The chained GPIO IRQ handler on Tegra calls ->irq_ack on the parent > chip prior to handling the interrupt. > This patch updates the code to use ->irq_eoi now that the GIC has moved > to using the fasteoi flow model. > Acked-by: Colin Cross > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon > --- > arch/arm/mach-tegra/gpio.c | 17 +---------------- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/gpio.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/gpio.c > index ad80488..5019b01 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/gpio.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/gpio.c > @@ -219,9 +219,6 @@ static void tegra_gpio_irq_handler(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc) > struct tegra_gpio_bank *bank; > int port; > int pin; > - int unmasked = 0; > - > - desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack(&desc->irq_data); Won't this code break after the first patch as it removes irq_ack() method? I.e. shouldn't the patches be combined to keep them bisectable? WBR, Sergei