From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: linux-next: mfd tree build failure Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:20:57 +0000 Message-ID: <20091123152057.GH24326@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <20091123144103.73b4d64c.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091123150346.e3948feb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20091123122903.GB3616@sortiz.org> <20091123131113.GE24326@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> <20091123144413.GD3616@sortiz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091123144413.GD3616@sortiz.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Samuel Ortiz Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-next.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:44:14PM +0100, Samuel Ortiz wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 01:11:13PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > I don't see getting them exported flying, especially not in the > > timeframe we've got for the merge window. Keeping them non-exported has > > been a deliberate decision on the part of the genirq maintainers. > Out of curiosity, what's the reasoning behind thatdecision ? Unless you're actually implementing an interrupt controller those APIs should never be called and people should be using flags on request_irq() or similar. Driver authors have been awfully fond of bypassing those APIs, but this prevents them doing so. None of this is really a practical issue unless you implement an IRQ controller in a driver and that's very rare (or has been up until now).