From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: tglx@linutronix.de
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SA_TRIGGER_* vs. SA_SAMPLE_RANDOM
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:10:29 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1151712629.27137.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1151676007.25491.712.camel@localhost.localdomain>
> We have the same hassle with SA_INTERRUPT. The question arises, if we
> should move the SA_XX flags for interrupts completely out of the signal
> SA name space. Rename to IRQ_xxx and put them into interrupt.h.
Agreed. In addition, if you look specifically at triggers, I've seen so
far:
- The new SA_* trigger stuff
- The IRQ_TYPE_* stuff
- The definitions of bits in struct resource of interrupts in ioport.h
- The old IRQ_LEVEL
- Various arch specific things that duplicate it again
In addition, it's different bits with different organisation (for
example, the IRQ_TYPE can express dual edge), etc...
In my new powerpc IRQ rework, I'm wiping out our own definitions for
triggers and using IRQ_TYPE_* accross the range. I'm howveer not using
the SA_* stuff at all at this point (that is, I'm neither converting the
trigger type of a given interrupt to SA_* and putting it in the
action/desc, nor honoring the SA_* triggers passed in request_irq at
this point). It might be nice to do so, but I find that there is just
way too much confusion at the moment.
Ben.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-07-01 0:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-29 21:17 David Miller
2006-06-30 14:00 ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-06-30 18:47 ` Russell King
2006-06-30 20:21 ` David Miller
2006-06-30 20:27 ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-06-30 20:31 ` David Miller
2006-06-30 22:25 ` Thomas Gleixner
2006-07-01 0:14 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2006-07-01 0:10 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1151712629.27137.15.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome