On 22/06/2017 11:31, Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:28:55PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> In the next changes, we track when the interrupts occur in order to >> statistically compute when is supposed to happen the next interrupt. >> >> In all the interruptions, it does not make sense to store the timer interrupt >> occurences and try to predict the next interrupt as we know the expiration >> time. >> >> The request_irq() has a irq flags parameter and the timer drivers use it to >> pass the IRQF_TIMER flag, letting us know the interrupt is coming from a >> timer. >> Based on this flag, we can discard these interrupts when tracking them. >> >> But, the API request_percpu_irq does not allow to pass a flag, hence >> specifying >> if the interrupt type is a timer. >> >> Add a function __request_percpu_irq() where we can specify the flags. The >> request_percpu_irq() function is changed to be a wrapper to >> __request_percpu_irq() passing a zero flag parameter. >> >> For now, in order to prevent a misusage of this parameter, only the >> IRQF_TIMER >> flag (or zero) is a valid parameter to be passed to the >> __request_percpu_irq() function. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]> >> Cc: Mark Rutland <[email protected]> > > Sorry for leading you round the garden path on the naming.
No problem ;) -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
