On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:51:27AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 03/08/2012 09:13 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 00:39 +, Russell King wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:35:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>> Actually, I didn't keep MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_
On 03/08/2012 09:13 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 00:39 +, Russell King wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:35:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> Actually, I didn't keep MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ, I kept HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ. If
>>> I remove it, then I get Kconfig w
On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 00:39 +, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:35:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Actually, I didn't keep MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ, I kept HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ. If
> > I remove it, then I get Kconfig warnings:
> >
> > warning: (PPC) selects SPARSE_IRQ which
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:35:46AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Actually, I didn't keep MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ, I kept HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ. If
> I remove it, then I get Kconfig warnings:
>
> warning: (PPC) selects SPARSE_IRQ which has unmet direct dependencies
> (HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS && HAVE_S
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:52 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:51 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Mikey,
> >
> > On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:33:56 +1100 Michael Neuling
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Surely we only need SPARSE_IRQ now and not MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ.
> > >
>
On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:51 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Mikey,
>
> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:33:56 +1100 Michael Neuling wrote:
> >
> > Surely we only need SPARSE_IRQ now and not MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ.
> >
> > In fact, keeping MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ seems to make SPARSE_IRQ user
> > selectable
Hi Mikey,
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:33:56 +1100 Michael Neuling wrote:
>
> Surely we only need SPARSE_IRQ now and not MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ.
>
> In fact, keeping MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ seems to make SPARSE_IRQ user
> selectable, which we don't want anymore since ad5b7f1350c2.
Yes, indeed. I will fix
> Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
> arch/powerpc/Kconfig between commit 2ed86b16eabe ("irq: make SPARSE_IRQ
> an optionally hidden option") from the arm tree and commit ad5b7f1350c2
> ("powerpc: Make SPARSE_IRQ required") from the powerpc tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see
Hi all,
Today's linux-next merge of the powerpc tree got a conflict in
arch/powerpc/Kconfig between commit 2ed86b16eabe ("irq: make SPARSE_IRQ
an optionally hidden option") from the arm tree and commit ad5b7f1350c2
("powerpc: Make SPARSE_IRQ required") from the powerpc tree.
I fixed it up (see be
