From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sebastian@breakpoint.cc (Sebastian Andrzej Siewior) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 21:24:03 +0200 Subject: AT91: Convert to fasteoi IRQ handler, and remove ARM irq_finish In-Reply-To: References: <1303909742.18407.12.camel@redbox> <20110428151819.GE13755@siel.b> Message-ID: <20110428192403.GA21061@linutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Andrew Victor | 2011-04-28 19:12:23 [+0200]: >hi, > >>> - ? ? desc->irq_data.chip->irq_unmask(&desc->irq_data); >>> - ? ? /* now it may re-trigger */ >>> + ? ? /* acknowledge interrupt - now it may re-trigger */ >>> + ? ? desc->irq_data.chip->irq_eoi(&desc->irq_data); >>> ?} >> >> why does this handler mess with the parent irq chip ? >> this looks pretty wrong to me. > >This is a chained-handler, and without that line the end-of-interrupt >doesn't seem to be signalled. Most chain handler don't mess with other irq chips. Why is the parent irq hanlder set level and not eoi? Wouldn't this make this superflous? btw: tglx removed direct desc access so this patch won't apply. >Regards, > Andrew Victor Sebastian