twl4030 threaded_irq support
in [Kernel]
|
Prev: gpiolib: Introduce chip addition/removal notifier
Next: [PATCH 2/2] cgroups: Clean up cgroup_pidlist_find() a bit
From: David Brownell on 26 Jan 2010 02:20 On Monday 14 December 2009, Felipe Balbi wrote: > move twl4030 children to threaded irq. > > Felipe Balbi (4): > input: keyboard: twl4030: move to request_threaded_irq > input: misc: twl4030: move to request_threaded_irq > rtc: twl4030: move to request_threaded_irq > usb: otg: twl4030: move to request_threaded_irq But nothing in drivers/mfd ... the entry to the whole stack? Did the threaded IRQ stuff ever get set up so that the top level IRQ thread didn't have to hand off to another thread each time? (That's how the current stuff works. One thread calling out to each handler.) If so, I'd like to see that be used here, rather than needlessly spend all those pages on mostly-unused stacks. > > drivers/input/keyboard/twl4030_keypad.c | 11 ++--------- > drivers/input/misc/twl4030-pwrbutton.c | 12 +----------- > drivers/rtc/rtc-twl4030.c | 10 +--------- > drivers/usb/otg/twl4030-usb.c | 10 +--------- > 4 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: David Brownell on 26 Jan 2010 02:50 On Monday 25 January 2010, David Brownell wrote: > Did the threaded IRQ stuff ever get set up so that the top > level IRQ thread didn't have to hand off to another thread > each time? �(That's how the current stuff works. �One thread > calling out to each handler.) Yes: set_irq_nested_thread(). Looks like the toplevel IRQ demux (in drivers/mfd/twl*irq*c) should use that, along with the ONESHOT flag and (eventually) bus_lock stuff. All the key parts that were missing a few years ago now seem to be present. But, not yet in use here. :) - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Mark Brown on 26 Jan 2010 05:10 On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:06:55PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Monday 14 December 2009, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > move twl4030 children to threaded irq. > But nothing in drivers/mfd ... the entry to the whole stack? > Did the threaded IRQ stuff ever get set up so that the top > level IRQ thread didn't have to hand off to another thread > each time? (That's how the current stuff works. One thread > calling out to each handler.) Yes, that's in mainline now. There's two bits required to use it which are (from the driver point of view) fairly orthogonal - one is to convert the interrupt controller to use the new stuff, the other is to make sure that all the drivers that are requesting the interrupts over to threaded IRQ handlers. genirq will require the threaded handlers once it's being used. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Felipe Balbi on 26 Jan 2010 06:10 On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 08:06:55AM +0100, ext David Brownell wrote: >On Monday 14 December 2009, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> move twl4030 children to threaded irq. >> >> Felipe Balbi (4): >> input: keyboard: twl4030: move to request_threaded_irq >> input: misc: twl4030: move to request_threaded_irq >> rtc: twl4030: move to request_threaded_irq >> usb: otg: twl4030: move to request_threaded_irq > >But nothing in drivers/mfd ... the entry to the whole stack? > >Did the threaded IRQ stuff ever get set up so that the top >level IRQ thread didn't have to hand off to another thread >each time? (That's how the current stuff works. One thread >calling out to each handler.) > >If so, I'd like to see that be used here, rather than needlessly >spend all those pages on mostly-unused stacks. correct, that's still missing. I tried to play with it for a while, but had to give up due to other musb tasks. So if someone wants to step up and code that part, I'd be glad -- balbi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: David Brownell on 26 Jan 2010 07:20
On Tuesday 26 January 2010, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >But nothing in drivers/mfd ... the entry to the whole stack? > >... > > correct, that's still missing. I tried to play with it for a while, but > had to give up due to other musb tasks. So if someone wants to step up > and code that part, I'd be glad I'm quite sure I sent a patch doing that ... sometime early last summer, when the threaded IRQ stuff was being thrashed out! (To show what it'd look like, and see what problems remained.) That interface hasn't changed much since then, except for addition of a stuff like ONESHOT support, set_irq_nested_thread(), and the bus_lock stuff. It's surely in LKML archives. :) My point here was more like: these patches shouldn't merge without that top-level change. Just switch the whole current structure (one thread, nesting) over to the now-standard interfaces at the same time, not incrementally. Later, the bus_lock stuff can switch over too (for cleaner mask/unmask). That's clearly material for 2.6.34 though ... - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |