From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: avictor.za@gmail.com (Andrew Victor)
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:03:03 +0200
Subject: AT91: Convert to fasteoi IRQ handler, and remove ARM irq_finish
In-Reply-To: <20110428192403.GA21061@linutronix.de>
References: <1303909742.18407.12.camel@redbox> <20110428151819.GE13755@siel.b>
	<BANLkTimUPfo0kMn3HPa5iZUO5g_b6rVKcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20110428192403.GA21061@linutronix.de>
Message-ID: <BANLkTikdnDtwZj1QgLxibRBiv=Ox8Y5PWg@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

hi Sebastian,

>>> 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?

This patch changes the parent from level to eoi.