Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756746AbaAKEPZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jan 2014 23:15:25 -0500 Received: from mail-oa0-f68.google.com ([209.85.219.68]:48725 "EHLO mail-oa0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753254AbaAKEPW (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jan 2014 23:15:22 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 12:15:21 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: [Question] Should we make the primary interrupt handler configurable for regmap_add_irq_chip()? From: Yi Zhang To: Mark Brown Cc: Yi Zhang , hongfeng@marvell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, zhouqiao@marvell.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Mark: Sorry to trouble you; I have a question about the regmap_add_irq_chip(): at present, we use the default primary interrupt handler to handle the parent interrupt from a mfd device; 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; so could we make the the primary interrupt handler configurable? for example, add a parameter to regmap_add_irq_chip(), then the user can choose to use current solution or his/her own handler; what do you think? could you please share your opinion? thanks very much; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/