From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932156AbWGFMH3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:07:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932415AbWGFMH3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:07:29 -0400 Received: from www.osadl.org ([213.239.205.134]:65155 "EHLO mail.tglx.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932156AbWGFMH2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jul 2006 08:07:28 -0400 Subject: Re: AVR32 architecture patch against Linux 2.6.18-rc1 available From: Thomas Gleixner Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de To: Haavard Skinnemoen Cc: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@osdl.org In-Reply-To: <20060706135027.140c6f8c@cad-250-152.norway.atmel.com> References: <20060706105227.220565f8@cad-250-152.norway.atmel.com> <20060706021906.1af7ffa3.akpm@osdl.org> <20060706120319.26b35798@cad-250-152.norway.atmel.com> <1152185425.24611.140.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060706135027.140c6f8c@cad-250-152.norway.atmel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:10:07 +0200 Message-Id: <1152187808.24611.142.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 13:50 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:30:25 +0200 > Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 12:03 +0200, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > > > Looks pretty sane from a quick scan. > > > > > > > > - request_irq() can use GFP_KERNEL? > > > > > > Probably, but the genirq implementation also uses GFP_ATOMIC. > > > > Is there a good reason, why AVR32 needs its own interrupt handling > > implementation ? > > No, not really. At least not after the genirq stuff went in. I used to > be a bit concerned about the generic irq code being too heavyweight, > but I think handle_simple_irq() might be just what we need for > chip-internal interrupt handling. > > > >From a short glance there's nothing which can not be handled by the > > generic code. Also there are a couple of things missing -e.g. > > recursive enable/disable_irq() handling. > > You're probably right. I'll see if I can get it converted to genirq > one of the next days. Good. If there are any questions or things you find missing, don't hesitate to ask. tglx