[question] NR_IRQS in genirq
broonie at opensource.wolfsonmicro.com
Wed Nov 24 09:00:49 EST 2010
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.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel