From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2017 22:25:52 +0200 Subject: [PATCH V10 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with percpu irq request In-Reply-To: References: <20170612135108.GD2261@mai> <1497275529-23565-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20170620202552.GA1812@mai> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 04:05:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jun 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence specifying > > if the interrupt type is a timer. > > > > Add a function request_percpu_irq_flags() where we can specify the flags. The > > request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to > > request_percpu_irq_flags() passing a zero flag parameter. > > And exactly this change wants to be a separate patch. We do not make whole > sale changes this way. You should know that already and someone pointed > that out to you in some of the earlier versions. > > > -int request_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > - const char *devname, void __percpu *dev_id) > > +int request_percpu_irq_flags(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler, > > The function name sucks. The first time I read it, it meant request the per > cpu irq flags, which is not what you aim at, right? > > Please make that __request_percpu_irq() for now and on -rc1 time provide a > patch set to convert all current request_percpu_irq() users to have the > extra argument and then remove the __request_percpu_irq() intermediate. Ok, I will the change this way. What about 2/3 and 3/3? Is it possible to take them with the __request_percpu_irq change? -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog