From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Delvare Subject: Re: [-next]: s390 *_irq() link errors Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 12:05:16 +0200 Message-ID: <20120930120516.29be3022@endymion.delvare> References: <20120927115134.GA5654@osiris.de.ibm.com> <20120930105350.16e54037@endymion.delvare> <20120930112052.733ce361@endymion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from zoneX.GCU-Squad.org ([194.213.125.0]:19899 "EHLO services.gcu-squad.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750716Ab2I3KF3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Sep 2012 06:05:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Heiko Carstens , Peter Huewe , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Linux-Next , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:35:41 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 11:08:41 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: > >> > I thought we were trying to move away from explicit arch exclusions, > >> > but if S390 is special then fine with me. I've folded Heiko's fix into > >> > >> "depends on GENERIC_HARDIRQS" is the alternative... > > > > That would make even less sense to me, I2C can work just fine without > > IRQs. > > For the individual drivers that need it... Oh, of course. Sorry I was probably not completely awaken ;) Either way is fine with me if it makes developers and users happy. -- Jean Delvare