Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] irqchip: Add DT binding doc for the virtual irq demuxer chip

Alexandre Belloni
2015-02-11T13:38:59Z

On 11/02/2015 at 12:36:56 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote :
> > Actually, that was one of the requirements expressed by Thomas (Thomas,
> > correct me if I'm wrong).
> > The point was to force shared irq users to explicitly specify that they
> > are mixing !IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND because they have no
> > other choice.
> >
> > With your patch, there's no way to inform users that they are
> > erroneously setting the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag on one of their shared
> > interrupt.
>
> Sure, but even with the demux that's still the case (because it pretends
> that this mismatch is a HW property rather than a property of the set of
> drivers sharing the interrupt).
>
> Whether there's a demux node in the DTB is entirely separate from
> whether the drivers can actually handle the situation.
>
> So if we need a warning in the presence of mismatch and action masking,
> we need the exact same warning with the demux.
>

Actually, we only care about removing the warning. It is effectively the
HW that forces us to do so. So we would be completely happy with a new
flag to silence the warning as we know what we are doing (I think that
has already been suggested).

> The presence of a demux implies the DTB author believes they have solved
> the problem with the demux, not necessarily that they have considered
> the situation and updated drivers appropriately. Relying on the demux to
> imply that everything is fine only gives us the illusion that everything
> is fine.
>

Whatever the solution, it could be used as a workaround the warning as
this is exactly what we need for our platform.

--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html