From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 12:46:10 +0100 Subject: RFC, GIC based smp_cross_call cleanup suggestion In-Reply-To: <4D9851B5.20100@ti.com> References: <10921831-0170-4106-bb3a-a52515a32c3e@VA3EHSMHS002.ehs.local> <20110402085133.GE8482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110403103730.GB4213@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D9851B5.20100@ti.com> Message-ID: <20110403114610.GC4213@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 04:23:41PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > Sure, it does break OMAP4. These functions are there because they > are used/compiled only for SMP support. If they're only used privately within the mach-omap2 code, then putting them in a header file in arch/arm/mach-omap2 would've been the logical thing to do, rather than telling the entire SMP kernel about the functions. Header files in arch/arm/*/include/mach included from arch/arm/include/asm/*.h are there to provide necessary definitions for either the rest of the kernel or the ARM specific parts. They shouldn't be polluted with *any* platform private stuff which is not absolutely necessary to satisfy the rest of the kernel. Those mach/ includes being: mach/barriers.h mach/clkdev.h mach/floppy.h mach/gpio.h mach/hardware.h mach/io.h mach/irqs.h mach/isa-dma.h mach/memory.h mach/mtd-xip.h mach/smp.h mach/timex.h mach/vmalloc.h