From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/5] net: dsa: b53: Make SRAB driver manage port
 interrupts
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 16:46:59 -0700
Message-ID: <1ad537ab-ebe5-8745-c907-aea684fee56c@gmail.com>
References: <20180904221120.13018-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
 <20180904221120.13018-3-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
 <20180904225955.GH29121@lunn.ch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, vivien.didelot@savoirfairelinux.com,
        davem@davemloft.net
To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
Return-path: <netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-wr1-f65.google.com ([209.85.221.65]:37982 "EHLO
        mail-wr1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1725763AbeIEEOg (ORCPT
        <rfc822;netdev@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 5 Sep 2018 00:14:36 -0400
Received: by mail-wr1-f65.google.com with SMTP id w11-v6so5666922wrc.5
        for <netdev@vger.kernel.org>; Tue, 04 Sep 2018 16:47:10 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180904225955.GH29121@lunn.ch>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <netdev.vger.kernel.org>

On 09/04/2018 03:59 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> +static irqreturn_t b53_srab_port_isr(int irq, void *dev_id)
>> +{
>> +	struct b53_srab_port_priv *port = dev_id;
>> +	struct b53_device *dev = port->dev;
>> +	struct b53_srab_priv *priv = dev->priv;
>> +
>> +	/* Acknowledge the interrupt */
>> +	writel(BIT(port->num), priv->regs + B53_SRAB_INTR);
>> +
>> +	schedule_work(&port->irq_work);
>> +
>> +	return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int b53_srab_irq_enable(struct b53_device *dev, int port)
>> +{
>> +	struct b53_srab_priv *priv = dev->priv;
>> +	struct b53_srab_port_priv *p = &priv->port_intrs[port];
>> +	int ret;
>> +
>> +	ret = request_irq(p->irq, b53_srab_port_isr, 0,
>> +			  dev_name(dev->dev), p);
> 
> Hi Florian
> 
> Could you use a threaded interrupt? Save you from having to implement
> your own work queue. I think you can have a function called in both
> interrupt context in order to acknowledged the interrupt, and thread
> context to do the remaining work.

Indeed, this works nicely actually, thanks for the suggestion.
-- 
Florian