[PATCH] ARM: mxs: irq_data conversion
u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de
Fri Jan 21 05:15:36 EST 2011
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 09:43:38AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 10:01:58AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 +
> > arch/arm/mach-mxs/gpio.c | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
> > arch/arm/mach-mxs/icoll.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> > 3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > index 5cff165..c8d888e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > @@ -364,6 +364,7 @@ config ARCH_MXS
> > select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
> > select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
> > select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
> > + select GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO_DEPRECATED
> No. Let's do it architecture wide otherwise we're going to get into
> problems working out what's been done and what hasn't. By all means
> use it as a way of ensuring that your platform is converted, but don't
> submit patches with this in.
> I thought the point of Lennert's patches were to convert everyone over,
> so it should just be those trees which weren't merged at that point who
> are missing the fixup.
Yes, but he missed mxs, probably because the tree he based his work on
doesn't contain it yet.
> We'll set this architecture wide for 2.6.39, and I'll see about queueing
> it soon so that we catch those places which haven't been done. That
> should allow the remainder to be caught.
IMHO doing it the other way round would be better. (i.e. use a def_bool
y for the unconverted platforms and then push that down.) But maybe
this is just a matter of taste.
How should we proceed? Lennert, do you take my patch? Should I resend
without the select? IIRC there were send a few other patches (for tegra
maybe?). Don't know if you missed these, too?
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
More information about the linux-arm-kernel