From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Norris Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/27] memory: omap-gpmc: mtd: nand: Support GPMC NAND on non-OMAP platforms Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:43:30 -0800 Message-ID: <20151202184330.GH64635@google.com> References: <1442588029-13769-1-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <20151026212346.GJ13239@google.com> <562F45BF.8020205@ti.com> <20151130195449.GI64635@google.com> <565DB18C.7040505@ti.com> <20151202032643.GF64635@google.com> <565E7DAC.7060401@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <565E7DAC.7060401@ti.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Roger Quadros Cc: tony@atomide.com, dwmw2@infradead.org, ezequiel@vanguardiasur.com.ar, javier@dowhile0.org, fcooper@ti.com, nsekhar@ti.com, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Roger, On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 10:42:12AM +0530, Roger Quadros wrote: > On 02/12/15 08:56, Brian Norris wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 04:41:16PM +0200, Roger Quadros wrote: > >> On 30/11/15 21:54, Brian Norris wrote: > >>> But anyway, I'm not sure that completely answered my question. My > >>> question was whether you were removing the irqchip code solely for > >>> performance reasons, or are there others? > >> > >> Yes. Only for performance reasons. > > > > Hmm, that's not my favorite answer. I'd prefer that more analysis was > > done here before scrapping irqchip... > > I agree. We could retain the irqchip model till we have more satisfying > analysis. I won't insist, though if it's not too ugly/horrible to do so, I think that would make sense. I'll leave it as your call. Brian