[PATCH 2/4] arm: Kconfig: remove duplicated GENERIC_HARDIRQS entry

[PATCH 2/4] arm: Kconfig: remove duplicated GENERIC_HARDIRQS entry

[Felipe Balbi]

GENERIC_HARDIRQS is defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig,
so it's safe to drop the duplicated entry and simply
select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS. While at that, also
remove GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ because it's also
defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig when
HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS is selected.

Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
---
 arch/arm/Kconfig |    8 +-------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
index d56d21c0..e6f0f8b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ config ARM
 	select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD if (!XIP_KERNEL)
 	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE if (!XIP_KERNEL)
 	select HAVE_GENERIC_DMA_COHERENT
+	select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS
 	select HAVE_KERNEL_GZIP
 	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZO
 	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZMA
@@ -88,10 +89,6 @@ config MCA
 	  <file:Documentation/mca.txt> (and especially the web page given
 	  there) before attempting to build an MCA bus kernel.
 
-config GENERIC_HARDIRQS
-	bool
-	default y
-
 config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT
 	bool
 	default y
@@ -171,9 +168,6 @@ config FIQ
 config ARCH_MTD_XIP
 	bool
 
-config GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ
-	def_bool y
-
 config ARM_L1_CACHE_SHIFT_6
 	bool
 	help
-- 
1.7.3.4.598.g85356


--TYecfFk8j8mZq+dy--

[PATCH 2/4] arm: Kconfig: remove duplicated GENERIC_HARDIRQS entry

[Felipe Balbi]

GENERIC_HARDIRQS is defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig,
so it's safe to drop the duplicated entry and simply
select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS.

Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
---
 arch/arm/Kconfig |    8 +-------
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
index d56d21c0..e6f0f8b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ config ARM
 	select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD if (!XIP_KERNEL)
 	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE if (!XIP_KERNEL)
 	select HAVE_GENERIC_DMA_COHERENT
+	select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS
 	select HAVE_KERNEL_GZIP
 	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZO
 	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZMA
@@ -88,10 +89,6 @@ config MCA
 	  <file:Documentation/mca.txt> (and especially the web page given
 	  there) before attempting to build an MCA bus kernel.
 
-config GENERIC_HARDIRQS
-	bool
-	default y
-
 config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT
 	bool
 	default y
@@ -171,9 +168,6 @@ config FIQ
 config ARCH_MTD_XIP
 	bool
 
-config GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ
-	def_bool y
-
 config ARM_L1_CACHE_SHIFT_6
 	bool
 	help
-- 
1.7.3.4.598.g85356

[PATCH 2/4] arm: Kconfig: remove duplicated GENERIC_HARDIRQS entry

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:02:55PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> GENERIC_HARDIRQS is defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig,
> so it's safe to drop the duplicated entry and simply
> select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/Kconfig |    8 +-------
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> index d56d21c0..e6f0f8b 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ config ARM
>  	select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD if (!XIP_KERNEL)
>  	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE if (!XIP_KERNEL)
>  	select HAVE_GENERIC_DMA_COHERENT
> +	select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS
>  	select HAVE_KERNEL_GZIP
>  	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZO
>  	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZMA
> @@ -88,10 +89,6 @@ config MCA
>  	  <file:Documentation/mca.txt> (and especially the web page given
>  	  there) before attempting to build an MCA bus kernel.
>  
> -config GENERIC_HARDIRQS
> -	bool
> -	default y
> -
>  config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT
>  	bool
>  	default y
> @@ -171,9 +168,6 @@ config FIQ
>  config ARCH_MTD_XIP
>  	bool
>  
> -config GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ
> -	def_bool y
> -
You didn't mention this change in the commit log.  Is this duplicated,
too or did it just slip through?

Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[PATCH 2/4] arm: Kconfig: remove duplicated GENERIC_HARDIRQS entry

[Felipe Balbi]

On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 15:00 +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:02:55PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > GENERIC_HARDIRQS is defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig,
> > so it's safe to drop the duplicated entry and simply
> > select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/Kconfig |    8 +-------
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > index d56d21c0..e6f0f8b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ config ARM
> >  	select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD if (!XIP_KERNEL)
> >  	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE if (!XIP_KERNEL)
> >  	select HAVE_GENERIC_DMA_COHERENT
> > +	select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS
> >  	select HAVE_KERNEL_GZIP
> >  	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZO
> >  	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZMA
> > @@ -88,10 +89,6 @@ config MCA
> >  	  <file:Documentation/mca.txt> (and especially the web page given
> >  	  there) before attempting to build an MCA bus kernel.
> >  
> > -config GENERIC_HARDIRQS
> > -	bool
> > -	default y
> > -
> >  config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT
> >  	bool
> >  	default y
> > @@ -171,9 +168,6 @@ config FIQ
> >  config ARCH_MTD_XIP
> >  	bool
> >  
> > -config GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ
> > -	def_bool y
> > -
> You didn't mention this change in the commit log.  Is this duplicated,
> too or did it just slip through?

Yes it is. My bad. Do I need to update the patch ? I can do it tomorrow.

-- 
balbi

[PATCH 2/4] arm: Kconfig: remove duplicated GENERIC_HARDIRQS entry

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 03:00:31PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:02:55PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > GENERIC_HARDIRQS is defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig,
> > so it's safe to drop the duplicated entry and simply
> > select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/Kconfig |    8 +-------
> >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > index d56d21c0..e6f0f8b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ config ARM
> >  	select HAVE_FTRACE_MCOUNT_RECORD if (!XIP_KERNEL)
> >  	select HAVE_DYNAMIC_FTRACE if (!XIP_KERNEL)
> >  	select HAVE_GENERIC_DMA_COHERENT
> > +	select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS
> >  	select HAVE_KERNEL_GZIP
> >  	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZO
> >  	select HAVE_KERNEL_LZMA
> > @@ -88,10 +89,6 @@ config MCA
> >  	  <file:Documentation/mca.txt> (and especially the web page given
> >  	  there) before attempting to build an MCA bus kernel.
> >  
> > -config GENERIC_HARDIRQS
> > -	bool
> > -	default y
> > -
> >  config STACKTRACE_SUPPORT
> >  	bool
> >  	default y
> > @@ -171,9 +168,6 @@ config FIQ
> >  config ARCH_MTD_XIP
> >  	bool
> >  
> > -config GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ
> > -	def_bool y
> > -
> You didn't mention this change in the commit log.  Is this duplicated,
> too or did it just slip through?

If you look at kernel/irq/Kconfig (as I did with the original patch)
you'd notice kernel/irq/Kconfig defines both of these symbols being
removed when HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS is enabled.

If you read the discussion in the previous version of this patch set,
you'd notice that the removal of this was specifically requested.

It's very tiresome to have to re-explain these things.  Please take
some more time to research the points you bring up, rather than
impulse-replying.

[PATCH 2/4] arm: Kconfig: remove duplicated GENERIC_HARDIRQS entry

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hi Russell,

On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 05:33:01PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 03:00:31PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:02:55PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > @@ -171,9 +168,6 @@ config FIQ
> > >  config ARCH_MTD_XIP
> > >  	bool
> > >  
> > > -config GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ
> > > -	def_bool y
> > > -
> > You didn't mention this change in the commit log.  Is this duplicated,
> > too or did it just slip through?
> 
> If you look at kernel/irq/Kconfig (as I did with the original patch)
> you'd notice kernel/irq/Kconfig defines both of these symbols being
> removed when HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS is enabled.
> 
> If you read the discussion in the previous version of this patch set,
> you'd notice that the removal of this was specifically requested.
> 
> It's very tiresome to have to re-explain these things.  Please take
> some more time to research the points you bring up, rather than
I don't agree here 100%.  IMHO the commit log was not good enough for
the change introduced by the patch (and Felipe's reply suggests that he
agrees).  I could still research it, but:

 - it was not obvious for me there was a previous version (no "v2" or
   similar in the patch subject);
 - for me it would take say 5 minutes to check, the author knows
   the answer to my question immediately (at least he should);
 - after a research I could suggest a better wording, but I don't care
   much if it's me or Felipe who comes up with a better text.

So all in all I'm still confident that my mail was OK.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |

[PATCH 2/4] arm: Kconfig: remove duplicated GENERIC_HARDIRQS entry

[Felipe Balbi]

Hi,

On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:54:45PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > If you look at kernel/irq/Kconfig (as I did with the original patch)
> > you'd notice kernel/irq/Kconfig defines both of these symbols being
> > removed when HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS is enabled.
> > 
> > If you read the discussion in the previous version of this patch set,
> > you'd notice that the removal of this was specifically requested.
> > 
> > It's very tiresome to have to re-explain these things.  Please take
> > some more time to research the points you bring up, rather than
> I don't agree here 100%.  IMHO the commit log was not good enough for
> the change introduced by the patch (and Felipe's reply suggests that he
> agrees).  I could still research it, but:
> 
>  - it was not obvious for me there was a previous version (no "v2" or
>    similar in the patch subject);
>  - for me it would take say 5 minutes to check, the author knows
>    the answer to my question immediately (at least he should);
>  - after a research I could suggest a better wording, but I don't care
>    much if it's me or Felipe who comes up with a better text.
> 
> So all in all I'm still confident that my mail was OK.

No need to fight over a simple change, here it is updated.

-- 
balbi