From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752861Ab1F3PN2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:13:28 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:36049 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751609Ab1F3PN0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2011 11:13:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:13:21 -0700 From: Mark Brown To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] asm-generic: Raise default NR_IRQS when using sparse IRQs Message-ID: <20110630151319.GA3249@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1309382426-30614-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Cookie: You are always busy. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 09:27:20AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 29 Jun 2011, Mark Brown wrote: > > Rather than have each platform using sparse IRQs pick a suitably large > > NR_IRQS for use with sparse IRQs make the default high when they are > > enabled. We pick 64k as there is still a bitmap of IRQs that is > > allocated statically, and as we all know 64k should be enough for > > anyone. > The sparse bitmap is overallocated to NR_IRQS + 8k anyway, so that's > rather pointless. Hrm, OK. In that case why are platforms faffing around trying to size NR_IRQs in the first place?