1 Feb 11:03
Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] ARM: only include mach/irqs.h for !SPARSE_IRQ
Pavel Machek <pavel <at> ucw.cz>
2012-02-01 10:03:56 GMT
2012-02-01 10:03:56 GMT
On Mon 2012-01-30 11:44:28, Cyril Hrubis wrote: > Hi! > > > > As a side-note, you may be pleased to know that I have SA11x0 stuff > > > > converted to (and tested) with sparse IRQ. That's with SA1111, the > > > > UCB1x00 and Neponset expansion board for the Assabet all dynamically > > > > allocating their IRQs. The only fixed-numbered IRQs in SA11x0 in my > > > > tree at the time of writing are the on-SoC IRQs, and the LoCoMo IRQs > > > > (which I don't have the hardware to test for, so I'm not touching.) > > > > > > That's really cool. > > > > > > Not that there are many people who might still benefit from running that > > > code, but like I said this should serve as a real and relatively simple > > > example that might benefit more complex platforms. > > > > > > > > > Nicolas > > > > Indeed, that's good going. I'm CCing a guy who might have a SA11xx board with > > LoCoMo chip (that's old zaurus sl55xx, right?). > > I think I still do have old zaurus in some box somewhere (I stopped playing > with it once I got the newer one). And I think that Pavel Machek (CC) has one > too (I think that he wanted to give away to anybody who is wishing to maintain > the particular kernel parts and I think that in the end nobody took it). Yep, I still have old collie (sl5500) machine. I don't really use it... Pavel(Continue reading)
> >
> > I said that setting the delay to 0 initially in the driver wasn't sufficient
> > to prevent the delay from being used.
>
> Yes, sure, I realise that.
>
> > If your intention was to use the PM QoS
> > _along_ with the delay, then you shouldn't advertise that as a regression fix
> > and I don't see a point setting the delay to 0 initially in the driver in that
> > case.
>
> Hmm, I'm not sure to follow here. Firstly, I'm not sure why using both
> cannot classify as a fix, secondly, do you mean, that when using QoS we
> don't have to set the delay to 0? But with the delay left at 200ms PM QoS
> doesn't have much left to say?
>
> > > For that we need Chris' opinion and that cannot be done in MMC host drivers
> > > so far, AFAICS.
RSS Feed