From: Felipe Balbi <hidden> Date: 2011-01-04 12:02:53
Hi all,
a few patches to enable sparse IRQ numbering on OMAP.
Also a few cleanups to arch/arm/Kconfig.
for convenience patches are also available from [1]:
[1] git://gitorious.org/usb/usb.git irq
Felipe Balbi (4):
arm: omap: gpio: don't access irq_desc array directly
arm: Kconfig: remove duplicated GENERIC_HARDIRQS entry
arm: Kconfig: remove duplicated SPARSE_IRQ entry
arm: Kconfig: allow OMAP to use sparse IRQ numbering
arch/arm/Kconfig | 22 ++++------------------
arch/arm/plat-omap/gpio.c | 10 +++++++---
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
--
1.7.3.4.598.g85356
From: Felipe Balbi <hidden> Date: 2011-01-04 12:02:54
Instead of accessing the irq_desc array directly
we can use irq_to_desc(irq). That will allow us to,
if wanted, select SPARSE_IRQ and irq_descs will be
added to a radix tree, instead of a array.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <redacted>
---
arch/arm/plat-omap/gpio.c | 10 +++++++---
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
From: Felipe Balbi <hidden> Date: 2011-01-04 12:02:55
GENERIC_HARDIRQS is defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig,
so it's safe to drop the duplicated entry and simply
select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <redacted>
---
arch/arm/Kconfig | 8 +-------
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
From: Felipe Balbi <hidden> Date: 2011-01-04 12:02:56
SPARSE_IRQ is defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig so
it's safe to remove the duplicated entry.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <redacted>
---
arch/arm/Kconfig | 13 ++-----------
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
From: Felipe Balbi <hidden> Date: 2011-01-04 12:02:57
Select HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ to allow OMAP to use
sparse IRQ numbering scheme. The main difference
is that irq_descs will be added to a radix tree
instead of a static array.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <redacted>
---
arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:02:55PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
quoted hunk
GENERIC_HARDIRQS is defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig,
so it's safe to drop the duplicated entry and simply
select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <redacted>
---
arch/arm/Kconfig | 8 +-------
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
You didn't mention this change in the commit log. Is this duplicated,
too or did it just slip through?
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
From: Felipe Balbi <hidden> Date: 2011-01-04 14:09:13
On Tue, 2011-01-04 at 15:00 +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:02:55PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
quoted
GENERIC_HARDIRQS is defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig,
so it's safe to drop the duplicated entry and simply
select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <redacted>
---
arch/arm/Kconfig | 8 +-------
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <hidden> Date: 2011-01-04 17:33:01
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 03:00:31PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 02:02:55PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
quoted
GENERIC_HARDIRQS is defined under kernel/irq/Kconfig,
so it's safe to drop the duplicated entry and simply
select HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <redacted>
---
arch/arm/Kconfig | 8 +-------
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
You didn't mention this change in the commit log. Is this duplicated,
too or did it just slip through?
If you look at kernel/irq/Kconfig (as I did with the original patch)
you'd notice kernel/irq/Kconfig defines both of these symbols being
removed when HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS is enabled.
If you read the discussion in the previous version of this patch set,
you'd notice that the removal of this was specifically requested.
It's very tiresome to have to re-explain these things. Please take
some more time to research the points you bring up, rather than
impulse-replying.
You didn't mention this change in the commit log. Is this duplicated,
too or did it just slip through?
If you look at kernel/irq/Kconfig (as I did with the original patch)
you'd notice kernel/irq/Kconfig defines both of these symbols being
removed when HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS is enabled.
If you read the discussion in the previous version of this patch set,
you'd notice that the removal of this was specifically requested.
It's very tiresome to have to re-explain these things. Please take
some more time to research the points you bring up, rather than
I don't agree here 100%. IMHO the commit log was not good enough for
the change introduced by the patch (and Felipe's reply suggests that he
agrees). I could still research it, but:
- it was not obvious for me there was a previous version (no "v2" or
similar in the patch subject);
- for me it would take say 5 minutes to check, the author knows
the answer to my question immediately (at least he should);
- after a research I could suggest a better wording, but I don't care
much if it's me or Felipe who comes up with a better text.
So all in all I'm still confident that my mail was OK.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
From: Felipe Balbi <hidden> Date: 2011-01-05 06:51:25
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 09:54:45PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
quoted
If you look at kernel/irq/Kconfig (as I did with the original patch)
you'd notice kernel/irq/Kconfig defines both of these symbols being
removed when HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS is enabled.
If you read the discussion in the previous version of this patch set,
you'd notice that the removal of this was specifically requested.
It's very tiresome to have to re-explain these things. Please take
some more time to research the points you bring up, rather than
I don't agree here 100%. IMHO the commit log was not good enough for
the change introduced by the patch (and Felipe's reply suggests that he
agrees). I could still research it, but:
- it was not obvious for me there was a previous version (no "v2" or
similar in the patch subject);
- for me it would take say 5 minutes to check, the author knows
the answer to my question immediately (at least he should);
- after a research I could suggest a better wording, but I don't care
much if it's me or Felipe who comes up with a better text.
So all in all I'm still confident that my mail was OK.
No need to fight over a simple change, here it is updated.
--
balbi