On Friday 04 May 2012, Rob Herring wrote: > On 05/04/2012 07:20 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 03 May 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > My plan is to have multiplatform kernels in parallel with what we have now, > > so we can avoid breaking working machines but also play with multiplatform > > configurations at the same time for a subset of the platforms and with > > certain restrictions (not all board files, not all drivers, no generic > > early printk, ...). > > > > Many of the headers are simply platform_data structs which may still be > needed on DT platforms, but could be moved elsewhere Yes, as Russell pointed out, these really should go to include/linux/platform_data/. My patchset take a few shortcuts there right now, adding an ugly hack to redirect the header files from their current locations so I can avoid all the hard work to do that. > > > >> We still have irqs.h being SoC dependent, and we still haven't taken > >> debug-macros.S far enough along to get rid of that. > > > > I believe the irqs.h conflict is only for the NR_IRQS constant, all other > > defines in there should only be used inside of the mach-* directory, > > or not at all for fully DT-based platforms. > > A DT-enabled platform does not need irqs.h or NR_IRQS. SPARSE_IRQ should > be selected for DT. However, some DT enabled platforms don't have all > irq chips converted to domains and may still need to set the mach .nr_irqs. Ah, good to know. I hadn't realized that the #include <mach/irqs.h> in asm/irq.h is already conditional. Arnd _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev