From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753228Ab3ACEyD (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2013 23:54:03 -0500 Received: from server.prisktech.co.nz ([115.188.14.127]:56445 "EHLO server.prisktech.co.nz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753202Ab3ACEyA (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2013 23:54:00 -0500 Message-ID: <1357188837.9052.5.camel@gitbox> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] irqchip: vt8500: Move irq code to drivers/irqchip From: Tony Prisk To: Rob Herring Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , vt8500-wm8505-linux-kernel@googlegroups.com, Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Thomas Petazzoni Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:53:57 +1300 In-Reply-To: <50E50B45.4040501@gmail.com> References: <1357183510-8476-1-git-send-email-linux@prisktech.co.nz> <1357183510-8476-3-git-send-email-linux@prisktech.co.nz> <50E50B45.4040501@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2013-01-02 at 22:38 -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > > CC: Thomas Gleixner > > arch/arm/mach-vt8500/Makefile | 2 +- > > arch/arm/mach-vt8500/common.h | 7 +- > > arch/arm/mach-vt8500/irq.c | 253 ----------------------------------------- > > drivers/irqchip/Makefile | 1 + > > drivers/irqchip/irq-vt8500.c | 253 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > It's easy to forget, but please post using the -M option so only real > changes are shown. Ok. > > -/* defined in irq.c */ > > +/* defined in drivers/irqchip/irq.c */ > > +int __init vt8500_irq_init(struct device_node *node, > > + struct device_node *parent); > > asmlinkage void vt8500_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs); > > These should go away with irqchip infrastructure Thomas and I have been > working on. I plan to post updated version in the next day. > > Rob Do you want me to rebase this patch on the new infrastructure once it's in a tree somewhere, or was this a heads-up that it will need another patch at some point? I only ask because if these patches need to be separated it will created merge-conflicts with arm-soc later on. Regards Tony P