lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Jan]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: irqnr fallout in gpiolib on sparc32

* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:

> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 13:57:04 +0100
>
> > Sparc32 on the other hand had a clean IRQ layer long before x86 found its
> > desire for a clean genirq layer - so genirq is a nuisance for Sparc32 at
> > best and it deserves none of the not nice actions. What i am hoping for is
> > that perhaps the Sparc unification changed that equation.
>
> Not really, the unificiation didn't change much in this area. [...]

Yeah, i mean - "changed the equation" psychologically, the same way it did
it on x86.

There's now two files close to each other in the namespace:

earth4:~/tip> ls -l arch/sparc/kernel/irq*.c
-rw-rw-r-- 1 mingo mingo 16122 2009-01-07 13:50 arch/sparc/kernel/irq_32.c
-rw-rw-r-- 1 mingo mingo 26556 2009-01-07 12:34 arch/sparc/kernel/irq_64.c

Each of them crying out loud to be unified. Every time you open irq_64.c
you'll think "why that ugly _64.c postfix, shouldnt this be irq.c
instead?" ;-)

That kind of gentle pressure to unify comes straight from the fact that
there's _32.c and _64.c postfixes around and the postfixes mess up command
completion when those files are opened, so we notice the non-unified-ness
again and again.

At least this was what drove many of the x86 unifications. (Mind you,
irq_32/irq_64.c is still not fully unified on x86 ;)

> [...] That doesn't change the fact that I do intend to genirq'ify
> sparc32 some time soon. :-)

Cool! :-)

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-01-07 14:05    [W:0.064 / U:9.340 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site