From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Sender: Grant Likely Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:21:45 -0700 From: Grant Likely To: Nicolas Ferre Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 24/25] irq_domain: remove "hint" when allocating irq numbers Message-ID: <20120215202145.GH25779@ponder.secretlab.ca> References: <1327700179-17454-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <1327700179-17454-25-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <4F316848.4060100@atmel.com> <4F3BC97C.6030203@atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <4F3BC97C.6030203@atmel.com> Cc: Stephen Rothwell , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Milton Miller , Thomas Gleixner , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 04:04:28PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > On 02/07/2012 07:07 PM, Nicolas Ferre : > > On 01/27/2012 10:36 PM, Grant Likely : > >> The 'hint' used to try and line up irq numbers with hw irq numbers is > >> rather a hack and not very useful. Now that /proc/interrupts also outputs > >> the hwirq number, it is even less useful to keep around the 'hint' heuristic. > >> > >> This patch removes it. > > > > Grant, > > > > While trying your patch series in conjunction with Rob one, I do not > > find this patch in your irqdomain/next branch (and a couple of others). > > Can you tell me if this v3 series is available as a git tree? > > I am still interested by patch 24-25 of this series but still cannot > find them in your irqdomain/next branch: > Are they also expected to join the 3.4 merge window material? I've held off on putting them in irqdomain/next because they are a bit more risky than the other patches, and I want an explicit ack from Ben for patches 24 & 25. However, that shouldn't really cause any issues since the changes in 24 & 25 don't impact the irq_domain functionality or API. They are just optimizations. Also on 25, I'm not yet convinced that breaking out the revmap functions into ops is the right thing to do. It actually makes the .text size quite a bit larger. I may very well rewrite it. g.