does twl3040-pwrirq.c "need" to be a separate file?
Hi Peter,
I see your patch 68d7477caca19c0b52b5d4e85700cd3e6115577f created pwrirq.c as a separate file and thread.
I'm wondering if there's any particular reason that "bank" of interrupts shouldn't be handled directly by twl4030-core, and even by the same IRQ handling thread.
As it stands now the TWL "core" is not especially core-ish in this respect, and I'd like to see that be resolved (e.g. by a patch I'll probably write this afternoon) before this code goes to mainline ...
- Dave
Hi David,
Quoted 5 lines · ext David Brownell
Hi Peter,
I see your patch
68d7477caca19c0b52b5d4e85700cd3e6115577fcreatedpwrirq.cas a separate file and thread.
I guess choose this solution because it was similar to the GPIO IRQs. Originally, this was 1 shared IRQ. But I wanted to change this to avoid every driver having to read PWR_ISR1 and clear his interrupt. This saves some i2c transactions.
Quoted 4 lines
I'm wondering if there's any particular reason that "bank" of interrupts shouldn't be handled directly by twl4030-core, and even by the same IRQ handling thread.
I don't think so.
Quoted 4 lines
As it stands now the TWL "core" is not especially core-ish in this respect, and I'd like to see that be resolved (e.g. by a patch I'll probably write this afternoon) before this code goes to mainline ...
Ok. Good.
Cheers,
Peter.
Signature · 1 line
goa is a state of mind
Hi Peter,
Quoted 7 lines · On Tuesday 30 September 2008, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
Quoted 2 lines
I see your patch
68d7477caca19c0b52b5d4e85700cd3e6115577fcreatedpwrirq.cas a separate file and thread.I guess choose this solution because it was similar to the GPIO IRQs. Originally, this was 1 shared IRQ. But I wanted to change this to avoid every driver having to read
PWR_ISR1and clear his interrupt. This saves some i2c transactions.
Right; modularization is appropriate. Although it doesn't seem to have hit all the TWL "subchips" yet ... :)
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I'm wondering if there's any particular reason that "bank" of interrupts shouldn't be handled directly by twl4030-core, and even by the same IRQ handling thread.
Quoted 8 lines
I don't think so.
Quoted 4 lines
As it stands now the TWL "core" is not especially core-ish in this respect, and I'd like to see that be resolved (e.g. by a patch I'll probably write this afternoon) before this code goes to mainline ...
Ok. Good.
Thanks for the sanity check.
- Dave