From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 19:05:38 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/27] irq_domain generalization and rework Message-ID: <20120217180538.GA11520@merkur.ravnborg.org> References: <1329383368-12122-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <20120216145219.0f1c1b98.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20120216232648.GM27825@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20120216232648.GM27825@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Milton Miller , Rob Herring , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > > > /* > > * Please do not include this file in generic code. There is currently > > * no requirement for any architecture to implement anything held > > * within this file. > > * > > * Thanks. --rmk > > */ > > > > A quick grep indicates that we've lost this battle ;) Is the comments > > still true? Should we stop discouraging inclusion of linux/irq.h? > > Does anyone even know that it's discouraged ;) > > It's still true for any platform which hasn't been converted to genirq, > as such a platform would not have asm/hw_irq.h. In-tree only s390 is not using genirq. All the rest are converted and provide hw_irq.h - most of the new archs provide hw_irq via asm-generic so it does not show up unless you look in the Kbuild file,. Sam