Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751755AbZGVOcP (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:32:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751526AbZGVOcO (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:32:14 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:59151 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751153AbZGVOcN (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:32:13 -0400 Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:32:11 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Dmitry Torokhov , Trilok Soni , Pavel Machek , Arve Hj?nnev?g , kernel list , Brian Swetland , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, Joonyoung Shim , m.szyprowski@samsung.com, t.fujak@samsung.com, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, David Brownell , Daniel Ribeiro Subject: Re: Threaded interrupts for synaptic touchscreen in HTC dream Message-ID: <20090722143211.GB29404@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <5d5443650907210530x4aaa03d6gd47ef5f79a3ef8a4@mail.gmail.com> <20090721124933.GA5668@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20090721160436.GD4352@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com> <20090721222547.GA1948@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20090722121800.GD21171@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <1248269443.27058.1449.camel@twins> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Cookie: revolutionary, adj.: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1117 Lines: 22 On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 04:18:26PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 22 Jul 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Also, how important is it that subhandler1..n run in their own thread? > > That is, can't we let them run from the thread that is otherwise waiting > > for the completino anyway? > In those cases I suspect we can do that. I guess there can be async > handling as well: the main handler queries the pending interrupts, > masks them, wakes the handlers and returns. No wait for all threads to > finish necessary before unmasking the main interrupt line. The chips I'm deling with can certainly support doing that but I'm not sure there'd be enormous advantages - a lot of the interrupt handlers will either be trivial (eg, RTC ticks or alarms) or be serialised by a need to interact with the chip anyway. I'd expect this to be generally true, though ICBW. -- 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/