From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Message-ID: <1333409927.30734.62.camel@pasglop>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 06/27] irq_domain/powerpc: eliminate irq_map; use
 irq_alloc_desc() instead
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:38:47 +1000
In-Reply-To: <20120402225223.GN24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
References: <1329383368-12122-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
 <1329383368-12122-7-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
 <m2iphj3zxr.fsf@igel.home> <m2hax2qeqs.fsf@igel.home>
 <20120402202848.1EB833E02A7@localhost>
 <20120402215524.GM24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <1333406005.30734.61.camel@pasglop>
 <20120402225223.GN24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>,
 Milton Miller <miltonm@bga.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
 linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 23:52 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> If we want to fix it a better way, then sure, that'll be good.  But
> what
> we shouldn't do is re-introduce one regression to fix a different
> regression.
> 
> So, Thomas, what do you think about providing a way that a disabled
> interrupt could have its pending status cleared such that when it's
> enabled, any queued events are ignored?  Maybe an
> enable_and_clear_irq() ? 

Ok. Doesn't matter anyway, this shouldn't be the problem in this
specific case. IE. we shouldn't be setting that interrupt to NONE.

We should have parsed the device-tree and set the trigger appropriately.

Cheers,
Ben.