From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] irqchip/gic: Pass GIC pointer to save/restore functions Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 12:52:07 +0100 Message-ID: <20160409125207.4f1d73dd@arm.com> References: <1458224359-32665-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <1458224359-32665-13-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1458224359-32665-13-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jon Hunter Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Cousson , Tony Lindgren , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Stephen Warren , Thierry Reding , Kevin Hilman , Geert Uytterhoeven , Grygorii Strashko , Lars-Peter Clausen , Linus Walleij , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 14:19:16 +0000 Jon Hunter wrote: > Instead of passing the GIC index to the save/restore functions pass a > pointer to the GIC chip data. This will allow these save/restore > functions to be re-used by a platform driver where the GIC chip data > structure is allocated dynamically and so there is no applicable index > for identifying the GIC. > > Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter Eventually, I'd like to move to a situation where we don't statically allocate the chip data anymore, and kill CONFIG_ARM_GIC_MAX_NR altogether. This is obviously a step in the right direction. Acked-by: Marc Zyngier M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.