Re: [PATCH] uio_pdrv: Unique IRQ Mode

["Magnus Damm" <magnus.damm@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Hans J. Koch <hjk@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 03:08:26PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
>> From: Magnus Damm <damm@igel.co.jp>
>>
>> This patch adds a "Unique IRQ Mode" to the uio_pdrv UIO platform driver.
>> In this mode the user space driver is responsible for acknowledging and
>> re-enabling the interrupt. Shared interrupts are not supported.
>
> I still don't see any gain in this. This only works for embedded
> devices, so a user has to setup hardware specific code in his board
> support anyway.

Exactly what in my patch makes this platform driver only suitable for
embedded devices?

> With your code, we would have to add something like this
> to the docs:
>
> IF you define an irq AND ommit the irq handler THEN we silently add a
> handler that blindly assumes the irq is not shared...

I'm not sure if silently and blindly are the first words that pop into
my mind, but sure. Documentation is a good idea. Just let me know
which uio_pdrv document you want me to modify.

> In my opinion, this is confusing, and all it does is saving the need for a
> three-lines irq handler in the board support.

You propose that I put the callbacks in my board support code instead
of modifying the driver. I don't think the board support level is the
proper place for this code. The patch contains no board specific code,
and it is independent of both architecture and cpu model.

> So, NAK to this until somebody convinces me that I completely missed the
> point.

We can reuse this driver for _many_ different SuperH processor models.
Most of these processor models even have more than one hardware block
that can be exported to user space using this uio_pdrv driver in
"Unique IRQ Mode". There is nothing board specific with this at all,
so yes, I think you are missing the point.

Maybe you prefer that I repost my "Reusable UIO Platform Driver"
instead of modifying uio_pdrv?

/ magnus