Hi Michael Ellerman, On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 12:12:55PM +0530, afzal mohammed wrote:
> request_irq() is preferred over setup_irq(). Invocations of setup_irq() > occur after memory allocators are ready. > > Per tglx[1], setup_irq() existed in olden days when allocators were not > ready by the time early interrupts were initialized. > > Hence replace setup_irq() by request_irq(). > > [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.20.1710191609480.1971@nanos > > Signed-off-by: afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd...@gmail.com> This patch is seen in next-test branch for last 4-5 days, i don't know exactly how powerpc workflow happens, so a question - this would be appear in linux-next soon right ? (for last 4-5 days i had been daily checking -next, but not appearing there). Sorry for the query for this trivial patch, i am asking because Thomas had mentioned [1] to get setup_irq() cleanup thr' respective maintainers (earlier it was part of tree-wide series), check -next after -rc6 & resubmit ignored ones to him, this patch is neither in -next, neither ignored, so i am at a loss what to do :( And i would prefer to let each patch go thr' respective maintainers so that only least patches has to be sent to Thomas. Bigger problem is that core removal patch of setup_irq() can be sent to him only after making sure that it's tree-wide usage has been removed. Regards afzal [1] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87y2somido....@nanos.tec.linutronix.de
