Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932512Ab1FPUDj (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:03:39 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:60993 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932293Ab1FPUDd (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Jun 2011 16:03:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:03:29 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Geert Uytterhoeven cc: Linux/m68k , Linux Kernel Development Subject: Re: m68k: Convert to genirq (WIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 853 Lines: 23 On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Seems like everything (Atari/ARAnyM and Amiga) still works when using > > handle_simple_irq instead of handle_level_irq. > > As a bonus, BogoMIPS is above 16 again. > > With handle_simple_irq(), we no longer need to define irq_{,un}mask() methods > in our irq_chips. Hence the "old" m68k platform interrupt code seems to be much > closer to genirq than I thought... > > Does this make sense? It makes sense, when your interrupt chips do not require any action when an interrupt is handled. In that case you can avoid the hardware access. Thanks, tglx -- 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/