From: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
To: "Tomáš Janoušek" <tomi@nomi.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Alessandro Zummo <alessandro.zummo@towertech.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc-dev: stop periodic interrupts on device release
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 15:05:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200807281505.37122.david-b@pacbell.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080728204136.GA6683@nomi.cz>
On Monday 28 July 2008, Tomáš Janoušek wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 01:50:55PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > Hmm, I'd think that something like an rtc_dev_ioctl(PIE_OFF) would be
Typo, by the way ... I meant UIE_OFF.
> > preferable here ... so that it's not just UIE_EMUL logic which turns
> > off the one-per-second update IRQs.
>
> I think it'd be more consistent if the framework only called the rtc api
> functions.
When they exist, sure. But they currently don't, and I see no value
in adding them just to avoid a simple rtc_dev_ioctl(UIE_OFF) call.
It'd be different if any in-kernel code used update IRQs ... NTP sync?
(Regardless, that's a separate bug and appropriate for a different patch.)
> Like: if the driver doesn't export an op for it and handles it in
> the ioctl op, it itself should be responsible to clear the irq in its release
> op. (I know there's no op for UIE, so we'd better add it instead of calling
> ioctl in the framework's release function.)
I still think the *existence* of a release() op is a problem. It's
requiring the drivers to maintain history they should never need.
Surely you agree that having the framework shut down only *emulated*
update IRQs, not "real" ones, is inconsistent? And hence undesirable?
- Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-28 22:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-26 15:46 [PATCH] rtc-dev: stop periodic interrupts on device release Tomas Janousek
2008-07-26 17:55 ` Alessandro Zummo
2008-07-26 18:06 ` Tomáš Janoušek
2008-07-26 18:13 ` Alessandro Zummo
2008-07-26 19:58 ` David Brownell
2008-07-26 20:50 ` David Brownell
2008-07-27 3:03 ` Mike Frysinger
2008-07-27 5:03 ` David Brownell
2008-07-28 20:41 ` Tomáš Janoušek
2008-07-28 20:47 ` Alessandro Zummo
2008-07-28 22:05 ` David Brownell [this message]
2008-07-28 23:36 ` Tomáš Janoušek
2008-07-29 20:08 ` David Brownell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200807281505.37122.david-b@pacbell.net \
--to=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=alessandro.zummo@towertech.it \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tomi@nomi.cz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox