From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754999Ab0KXOAy (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:00:54 -0500 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:41770 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752640Ab0KXOAw (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:00:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 14:00:49 +0000 From: Mark Brown To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Haojian Zhuang , linux-kernel , linux-arm-kernel Subject: Re: [question] NR_IRQS in genirq Message-ID: <20101124140048.GG24970@rakim.wolfsonmicro.main> References: <20101124135048.GC13507@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Cookie: Made with real ingredients. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:54:38PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:46:06PM +0800, Haojian Zhuang wrote: > > Most ARM platforms have come up with some Kconfig gunk to allow boards > > to extend this for off-SoC GPIOs. It'd be really nice to get rid of > > NR_IRQS and stop having to worry about this at all :( > I mean with sparse_irq you can set NR_IRQS insanely high w/o > increasing memory consumption. That's the whole point. Yeah, I was just pointing out common practice on ARM (sparse IRQ isn't widely enough deployed there :/ ). Would it be worth having sparse_irq change the default NR_IRQS to be something suitably large - there doesn't seem any point in having platforms using it each pick their own particular definition of insanely high? I'll take a look and cook up a patch unless I can spot anything silly about that by myself.