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_IRQ, I
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 warnings:
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 mi...@neuling.org
wrote:
Surely we only need SPARSE_IRQ now and not MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ.
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
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 has
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
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 below)
Hi Mikey,
On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:33:56 +1100 Michael Neuling mi...@neuling.org 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,
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 mi...@neuling.org 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
