From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:00:49 +0000 Subject: [question] NR_IRQS in genirq In-Reply-To: References: <20101124135048.GC13507@sirena.org.uk> Message-ID: <20101124140048.GG24970@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:54:38PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:46:06PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > > Most ARM platforms have come up with some Kconfig gunk to allow boards > > to extend this for off-SoC GPIOs. It'd be really nice to get rid of > > NR_IRQS and stop having to worry about this at all :( > I mean with sparse_irq you can set NR_IRQS insanely high w/o > increasing memory consumption. That's the whole point. Yeah, I was just pointing out common practice on ARM (sparse IRQ isn't widely enough deployed there :/ ). Would it be worth having sparse_irq change the default NR_IRQS to be something suitably large - there doesn't seem any point in having platforms using it each pick their own particular definition of insanely high? I'll take a look and cook up a patch unless I can spot anything silly about that by myself.