From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khc@pm.waw.pl (Krzysztof Halasa) Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:22:21 +0100 Subject: IXP4xx: unneeded #include platform-specific include files? In-Reply-To: (Imre Kaloz's message of "Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:11:44 +0100") References: <19200.18453.644399.845601@pilspetsen.it.uu.se> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org "Imre Kaloz" writes: > Why wouldn't you want to remember that "INTA" was "GPIO8"? When you want to > touch those lines you do have to remember or look up what GPIO was that one. > So this hardly makes it easier to work with or to remember to -- it certainly > duplicates the assignments, as you've also noted. Actually I'm not sure if I understand you correctly. If I use GPIO8 (presumably in different places) I have to remember what it is. This may be use with a couple of IRQ lines but gets harder and harder with a more complicated machine. Macros like SLOT0_INTA etc. don't have this problem. That's BTW why macros and symbolic names were invented. > The INTx naming convention is also stupid, as in most cases these are > not different > INT lines of the PCI slot but either separate slots or subdevices -- and note, > most of the boards only have INTa connected mechanically. > > And I didn't even get to the topic of *_PCI_MAX_DEV, *_PCI_IRQ_LINES > and the mania > of pci_irq_table usage.. But you've seen the patches I just posted, haven't you? -- Krzysztof Halasa