From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1754744Ab0I1FMN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 28 Sep 2010 01:12:13 -0400
Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:58698 "EHLO
	opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750767Ab0I1FMM (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 28 Sep 2010 01:12:12 -0400
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:12:26 -0700
From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>
Cc: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
        Balaji T K <balajitk@ti.com>, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@ti.com>,
        Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: speedup twl4030 irq response time and decrease
 irq disable time
Message-ID: <20100928051225.GA9864@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1285120171-3030-1-git-send-email-tom.leiming@gmail.com>
 <20100927154809.GI2560@sortiz-mobl>
 <AANLkTikjGD32hPhwPhZfETZX9H+--_SduTtqgyuqY_72@mail.gmail.com>
 <20100928042416.GA9359@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
 <AANLkTimT8WkgiCANL4tXcNgnm63oMnO2d2bKjDD1chJv@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimT8WkgiCANL4tXcNgnm63oMnO2d2bKjDD1chJv@mail.gmail.com>
X-Cookie: Condense soup, not books!
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 01:01:32PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> 2010/9/28 Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>:

> > Have you raised this issue with the genirq guys?  This sounds like
> > something that the core infrastructure should be able to cope with.

> Even genirq guys can help us to convert to irq thread framework, I
> don't think there is good way to set priority for one irq thread.

What I'm saying is that this sounds like something it's reasonable to
want to do so if there's no way currently to get high priority handling
of timing sensitive interrupt controllers it'd be good if there could
be.