From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring) Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:23:00 -0600 Subject: [PATCH v2 11/13] ARM: only include mach/irqs.h for !SPARSE_IRQ In-Reply-To: References: <1327091591-27125-1-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <1327091591-27125-12-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <4F19DB35.9060707@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4F205694.7090906@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/20/2012 04:48 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Rob Herring wrote: > >> On 01/20/2012 03:11 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Rob Herring wrote: >>> >>>> From: Rob Herring >>>> >>>> Make mach/irqs.h optional for SPARSE_IRQ. With this change irqs.h can be >>>> removed by converting platforms over to sparse irq. >>>> >>>> This intentionally breaks platforms that enable SPARSE_IRQ. >>> >>> I don't get what you mean here. The above seems contradictory. >>> >> >> You're right. The intro explains things more clearly. > > The intro won't be part of the git history, so please make sure > individual commit logs are sensible on their own. Updated the commit message to this (w/o the email word wrapping): ARM: only include mach/irqs.h for !SPARSE_IRQ Make mach/irqs.h optional for SPARSE_IRQ. With this change irqs.h can be removed by converting platforms over to sparse irq. This may break platforms where SPARSE_IRQ is user selectable and is enabled. This is on purpose so that SPARSE_IRQ gets properly supported. SPARSE_IRQ should not really be a user visible option. Platforms either need to set nr_irqs in their machine desc or all irqchips used by a platform need to allocate their irq_descs. There cannot be a mixture. Once this is done, the platforms can select SPARSE_IRQ. shmobile does the latter, and mmp and pxa do the former. >> This breaks platforms (at boot time) that don't select SPARSE_IRQ, but >> let users enable it in their config. I don't understand why sparse irq >> is a user visible config option. We could move HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ down to >> each platform that selects SPARSE_IRQ and prevent enabling, but I >> think allowing it to break is good encouragement for others to fix >> those platforms. I'm open to other ideas. > > SPARSE_IRQ shouldn't be a user configurable option. There is just no > point for a user configuring a kernel to be able to change this. I agree, but I'm inclined to leave this alone for now. PPC doesn't ever select SPARSE_IRQ, but enables it via many defconfigs. So I think changing it may cause some problems. Any other comments on this series? I guess all the maintainers copied are happy with it as there have been no other comments. I like to get this into next now and send pull request to Russell or arm-soc. Rob