Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932825AbdCaIBZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 04:01:25 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:39719 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932728AbdCaIBY (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Mar 2017 04:01:24 -0400 Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2017 10:01:20 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Aniruddha Banerjee cc: Jonathan Hunter , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Thierry Reding , Stephen Warren , Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] irq: add IRQF_TRIGGER_MASK on PPI by default In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 734 Lines: 22 On Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Aniruddha Banerjee wrote: > add IRQF_TRIGGER_MASK on PPI by default so that the PPIs are > not configured as edge-triggered, which may be wrong for certain GIC > implementations such as the GIC-400 The above is just useless blurb. I can't figure out at all WHY a generic interface has anything to do with edge trigger configuration. I assume this is (Nvidia) GIC specific nonsense, so why are you inflicting this on every caller of this interface unconditionally w/o explaining what the impact of this change might be and why it does not cause havoc for any existing caller? This is function is implemented in kernel/irq/ not in foo/gic/ so you better come up with some coherent explanation. Thanks, tglx