From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C18EFB70B2 for ; Fri, 25 Nov 2011 07:42:01 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <1322167308.32635.6.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/16] pmac_zilog: fix unexpected irq From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Alan Cox Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2011 07:41:48 +1100 In-Reply-To: <20111124145624.24438832@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> References: <20111023141108.856998818@telegraphics.com.au> <20111023141115.208699274@telegraphics.com.au> <20111124145624.24438832@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Finn Thain List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 14:56 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > This patch has been tested on a variety of m68k Macs but no > PowerMacs. > > > > I am re-sending this patch Cc linux-serial. It still needs a > suitable ack > > so that Geert can push it through his tree. > > Given the change should work for all hardware do we really need the > ifdefs. Far better I would have thought to just change it so we don't > have to maintain what is effectively two versions of the code between > now > and 2038. > > So no ack from me yet - I'd like to understand the ifdef decision > first. > Otherwise it looks sensible. Yes, agreed. Sorry, that one was one my to-do list for a while, I meant to look into more details and test on a ppc or two here see if it breaks anything, and never got to do it. I'll try to give it a go before hell freezes over. Cheers, Ben.