On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Stephen Neuendorffer <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grant >> Likely >> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 10:55 AM >> To: Stephen Neuendorffer >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] drivers/of: Allow IRQ code to work properly on >> architectures without >> NO_IRQ >> >> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Sane architectures don't rely on NO_IRQ. The device tree code shouldn't >> > require it either. >> >> I'm going to sit and think on this for a bit. I've got the same >> problem in MIPS, and I want to use the same solution in both cases. > > Agreed... I want to reiterate that the bulk of these changes are trying to > make the problems > concrete: I love the fact that the patches are getting smaller as the > problems get fixed in a > general way.
:-) My favorite patches are the ones that just go away. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
