From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grant Likely Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:01:32 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] ARM: only include mach/irqs.h for !SPARSE_IRQ Message-Id: <20120130150132.GJ28397@ponder.secretlab.ca> List-Id: References: <1327091591-27125-1-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <1327091591-27125-12-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <4F19DB35.9060707@gmail.com> <4F205694.7090906@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F205694.7090906@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 01:23:00PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On 01/20/2012 04:48 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Rob Herring wrote: > > > >> On 01/20/2012 03:11 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > >>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2012, Rob Herring wrote: > >>> > >>>> From: Rob Herring > >>>> > >>>> Make mach/irqs.h optional for SPARSE_IRQ. With this change irqs.h can be > >>>> removed by converting platforms over to sparse irq. > >>>> > >>>> This intentionally breaks platforms that enable SPARSE_IRQ. > >>> > >>> I don't get what you mean here. The above seems contradictory. > >>> > >> > >> You're right. The intro explains things more clearly. > > > > The intro won't be part of the git history, so please make sure > > individual commit logs are sensible on their own. > > Updated the commit message to this (w/o the email word wrapping): > > ARM: only include mach/irqs.h for !SPARSE_IRQ > > Make mach/irqs.h optional for SPARSE_IRQ. With this change irqs.h can be > removed by converting platforms over to sparse irq. > > This may break platforms where SPARSE_IRQ is user selectable and is enabled. > This is on purpose so that SPARSE_IRQ gets properly supported. SPARSE_IRQ > should not really be a user visible option. > > Platforms either need to set nr_irqs in their machine desc or all irqchips > used by a platform need to allocate their irq_descs. There cannot be a > mixture. Once this is done, the platforms can select SPARSE_IRQ. shmobile > does the latter, and mmp and pxa do the former. > > >> This breaks platforms (at boot time) that don't select SPARSE_IRQ, but > >> let users enable it in their config. I don't understand why sparse irq > >> is a user visible config option. We could move HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ down to > >> each platform that selects SPARSE_IRQ and prevent enabling, but I > >> think allowing it to break is good encouragement for others to fix > >> those platforms. I'm open to other ideas. > > > > SPARSE_IRQ shouldn't be a user configurable option. There is just no > > point for a user configuring a kernel to be able to change this. > > I agree, but I'm inclined to leave this alone for now. PPC doesn't ever > select SPARSE_IRQ, but enables it via many defconfigs. So I think > changing it may cause some problems. I think ppc can probably be moved to always enable SPARSE_IRQ since every ppc machine goes through irq_domain anyway. g.