From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753151AbdFVKga (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 06:36:30 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f181.google.com ([209.85.128.181]:33000 "EHLO mail-wr0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752188AbdFVKg2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 06:36:28 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with percpu irq request To: Mark Rutland Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , Hannes Reinecke , Bjorn Helgaas References: <20170620212657.GB1812@mai> <1497994139-19816-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <20170622093146.GA25967@leverpostej> From: Daniel Lezcano Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 12:36:24 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170622093146.GA25967@leverpostej> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 22/06/2017 11:31, Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:28:55PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> In the next changes, we track when the interrupts occur in order to >> statistically compute when is supposed to happen the next interrupt. >> >> In all the interruptions, it does not make sense to store the timer interrupt >> occurences and try to predict the next interrupt as we know the expiration >> time. >> >> The request_irq() has a irq flags parameter and the timer drivers use it to >> pass the IRQF_TIMER flag, letting us know the interrupt is coming from a timer. >> Based on this flag, we can discard these interrupts when tracking them. >> >> But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence specifying >> if the interrupt type is a timer. >> >> Add a function __request_percpu_irq() where we can specify the flags. The >> request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to >> __request_percpu_irq() passing a zero flag parameter. >> >> For now, in order to prevent a misusage of this parameter, only the IRQF_TIMER >> flag (or zero) is a valid parameter to be passed to the >> __request_percpu_irq() function. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano >> Cc: Mark Rutland > > Sorry for leading you round the garden path on the naming. No problem ;) -- Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog