From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felipe Balbi Subject: Re: [patch-net-next v2 3/3] net: ethernet: cpsw: don't requests IRQs we don't use Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 19:28:52 -0600 Message-ID: <20150116012852.GA3115@saruman> References: <1421254729-10602-3-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> <54B770FC.6060003@ti.com> <20150115152053.GA16409@saruman> <20150115.181615.498992970722065060.davem@davemloft.net> Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY" Cc: , , , , To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:60164 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752871AbbAPB3i (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jan 2015 20:29:38 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150115.181615.498992970722065060.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:16:15PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Felipe Balbi > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:20:53 -0600 >=20 > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:19:16PM +0530, Mugunthan V N wrote: > >> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 10:28 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> > CPSW never uses RX_THRESHOLD or MISC interrupts. In > >> > fact, they are always kept masked in their appropriate > >> > IRQ Enable register. > >> >=20 > >> > Instead of allocating an IRQ that never fires, it's best > >> > to remove that code altogether and let future patches > >> > implement it if anybody needs those. > >> >=20 > >> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi > >>=20 > >> Instead of introducing dummy ISR in previous patch and then removing in > >> this patch, both can be squashed into a single patch. > >=20 > > sure they can. I decided to split to ease review and to make sure only > > one thing happens in a single patch. >=20 > Indeed, I agree that adding something as a placeholder that just gets > immediately removed should be avoided unless it is extremely difficult > to do so. what does this mean ? you prefer both patches to be combined ? --=20 balbi --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUuGlUAAoJEIaOsuA1yqREEB0P/RezNPTcHxm/FU+CnzlAII9Y ZJTZ8Uck+6ardLCdd/O0PwlzFjYOTzNNnF1UfsnE1ngsaeYMu06kCyFJKrqwPbGK eAzIpXhsqr1YKrO7Y3sGEIxdnsvL0E/OwuUJnBCSa6IligaaFkgCgjj2xFETcbal QwGHUoUYtG4nDcXSttaEJH/Qw8w8ftUZeXYG8DZrQZ5t/WNjiZmfzZtHGY9f/BwI Ue1DmssivLOIPiZ1BaJQglCJ0khlwnDuLEcVms51048ONPEU2QjGOs+0VYtYFNuX YeIMwTrOMSEaMwCrT4N+AYsDdI3DNeE517ftMQtw+Qh40CWywNy55pnNNUID4x5y I0iRSRpExOcTJq2i/8GvvpSFV3sXof8Gg3L1hGFfkdGKb3dXcKS/Bjg+KfDMyP9M AKxTaB8lKEVf5G7wUzm+SYytnrfaTHbGMEBu9GGIy/s7O5IOXA3cAyZjmDWCDOEP 6y9aHQndwdiC0W9K7a0xTYSO6mdyn3zC/isoJ5nyp6FRCEWd61kPRfSyiMjs+R5M f5zUIjkEbCKoivbIqzdXdI2wXkrKSPY8t1ytnV363lVRfm3QNWp2fS0qfzNX/XpL EipxC7HpZy1LhjyAspUDnZB5hPsxJGOOalK2UeiJPdrSOx6b69gbMbw8A8y10HFT WRbVvhpVGDj78D8WMZXP =So4x -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --OXfL5xGRrasGEqWY--