From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Peter 'p2' De Schrijver" Subject: Re: does twl3040-pwrirq.c "need" to be a separate file? Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:22:25 +0300 Message-ID: <20080930092225.GD4552@codecarver.research.nokia.com> References: <200809291417.12437.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.105.134]:29962 "EHLO mgw-mx09.nokia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751521AbYI3JXD (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:23:03 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200809291417.12437.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: ext David Brownell Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Hi David, On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 02:17:12PM -0700, ext David Brownell wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I see your patch 68d7477caca19c0b52b5d4e85700cd3e6115577f created > pwrirq.c as a separate file and thread. > I guess choose this solution because it was similar to the GPIO IRQs. Originally, this was 1 shared IRQ. But I wanted to change this to avoid every driver having to read PWR_ISR1 and clear his interrupt. This saves some i2c transactions. > I'm wondering if there's any particular reason that "bank" of > interrupts shouldn't be handled directly by twl4030-core, and > even by the same IRQ handling thread. > I don't think so. > As it stands now the TWL "core" is not especially core-ish in > this respect, and I'd like to see that be resolved (e.g. by a > patch I'll probably write this afternoon) before this code > goes to mainline ... Ok. Good. Cheers, Peter. -- goa is a state of mind