From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753942AbYHWQJ2 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:09:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752413AbYHWQJV (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:09:21 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:40779 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752359AbYHWQJU (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Aug 2008 12:09:20 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 18:08:59 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Pawel MOLL Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: irq_chip->startup() usage in setup_irq and set_irq_chained handler Message-ID: <20080823160859.GE27974@elte.hu> References: <1219313656.31630.89.camel@bri1004.bri.st.com> <1219416584.31630.639.camel@bri1004.bri.st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1219416584.31630.639.camel@bri1004.bri.st.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Pawel MOLL wrote: > Hi, Ingo, > > Apparently I have swapped To: and Cc: field in the original mail, > apologies. > > > This patch clarifies a usage of irq_chip->startup() callback: > > > > 1. The "if (startup) startup(); else enabled();" code in setup_irq() > > is unnecessary, as startup() falls back to enabled() via > > default callbacks, set by irq_chip_set_defaults(). > > > > 2. When using set_irq_chained_handler() the startup() was never called, > > which is not good at all... Fixed. And again - when startup() is not > > defined the call will fall back to enable() than to unmask() via > > default callbacks. > > Any comment on the patch? looks good to me at first glance - but i Cc:-ed Thomas and Ben, maybe they have further comments. Ingo