From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:53:56 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 6/6] ARM: nmk: update GPIO chained IRQ handler to use EOI in parent chip In-Reply-To: References: <1298900022-21516-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <1298900022-21516-7-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com> <20110228140327.GA1937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <001401cbd772$a1f93ae0$e5ebb0a0$@deacon@arm.com> <20110228214445.GD1937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110301201904.GA27107@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110302085356.GB4493@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 10:29:37PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Errm. I did never say that we disable the parent interrupt by any > means except when the chained handler explicitely wants to do that, > which is pretty much pointlesss nowadays, as we run all interrupt > handlers with interrupts disabled. And that's now why some platforms struggle to work, and we're having to bodge around this - like the ARM platforms with MMC support. Like some other platforms where having IRQs disabled during IDE prevents interrupts being recevied for long periods of time (longer than the 100Hz tick period). I *violently* disagree with the direction that genirq is heading. It's *actively* breaking stuff. What's really annoying is that problems like the above I did point out, but you seem happy to completely ignore them. The result is that more and more ARM platforms *are* becoming utterly useless, or requiring additional complexity being shoved into subsystems to cope with this crap. What we need is a *decent* IRQ support system. Not something created out of religious arguments which is what we have now.