From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752777AbZAFM5n (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:57:43 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751708AbZAFM5d (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:57:33 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:32877 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751656AbZAFM5c (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:57:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:57:04 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: David Miller Cc: sam@ravnborg.org, kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com, yinghai@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de Subject: Re: irqnr fallout in gpiolib on sparc32 Message-ID: <20090106125704.GC20407@elte.hu> References: <20090105133819.GE6014@elte.hu> <20090105134832.GA14460@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20090105135508.GB4190@elte.hu> <20090105.123734.137888898.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090105.123734.137888898.davem@davemloft.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * David Miller wrote: > From: Ingo Molnar > Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:55:08 +0100 > > > * Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > > > > Dave has mentioned this but we are not working actively on it yet. > > > > would be cool to do it - i think sparc32 is one of the last major > > physical architectures to not be on genirq - > > m68k remains to be converted over to genirq as well yeah - but m68k has been a holdout from pretty much every optional core kernel facility that has been introduced in the past 5-10 years. So if sparc32 converts to genirq we have a stronger case for saying: "Convert, else ..." [ where the three dots stands for something not nice. ] Sparc32 on the other hand had a clean IRQ layer long before x86 found its desire for a clean genirq layer - so genirq is a nuisance for Sparc32 at best and it deserves none of the not nice actions. What i am hoping for is that perhaps the Sparc unification changed that equation. Ingo