Re: [RFC] killing linux/irq.h

[Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 10:34:55AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 09:50:38AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk wrote:
> > > 	We get regular portability bugs when somebody decides to include
> > > linux/irq.h into a driver instead of asm/irq.h.  It's almost always a
> > > wrong thing to do and, in fact, causes immediate breakage on e.g. arm.
> > 
> > Wouldn't it be more logical to make linux/irq.h the preferred include?
> > Usually the linux/* versions are preferred over the asm/* versions.
> 
> There's almost no reason to want <*/irq.h> in the first place.  Almost
> all drivers really want <linux/interrupt.h>

The only exception I can think of is for ARM where we supplement the
Linux interrupt API to deal with our configurable interrupt sources
(high level/low level/rising edge/falling edge triggers) on
certain platform groups.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:  2.6 Serial core