Re: [Question] Should we make the primary interrupt handlerconfigurable for regmap_add_irq_chip()?
From: Yi Zhang
Date: Thu Jan 16 2014 - 06:33:22 EST
2014/1/15 Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:15:21PM +0800, Yi Zhang wrote:
>> I met a scenario:
>> As soon as the interrupt is triggered, a wakelock is needed to be held
>> until the threaded handler finishes,
>> I think we may hold it in the primary interrupt handler, but now it's
>> NULL by default;
> This sounds like something we should just support in the core, though to
Sorry, I'm not clear about this, you mean that this has been supported
in regmap framework?
I searched but didn't find related mail about this, could you please
kindly point out the mail loop?
thanks very much;
> be honest I'd expect the interrupt core to hold a wakelock itself during
> interrupt processing. If we're doing it in regmap then allowing the
> caller to set a wakelock to hold seems better than making them all write
> the code to take and release it.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/