On Sun, 25 Mar 2012 20:26:15 +0530, Thomas Abraham <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 March 2012 06:12, Grant Likely <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 08:12:39 -0500, Rob Herring <[email protected]> > > wrote: > >> On 03/24/2012 04:27 AM, Thomas Abraham wrote: > >> > Add a empty irq_of_parse_and_map() that returns 0 for non-dt builds and > >> > avoid having #ifdef CONFIG_OF around all calls to irq_of_parse_and_map(). > >> > > >> > Suggested-by: Grant Likely <[email protected]> > >> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <[email protected]> > >> > --- > >> > >> Acked-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]> > >> > >> Go ahead and merge with the rest of your series. > > > > Actually, it's not quite fully baked; the forward declaration of > > irq_of_parse_and_map() needs to be moved under the #if > > defined(CONFIG_OF_IRQ) block (just move the #if statement up 7 lines). > > After doing that you can add my acked-by and merge it with the rest of > > your series. Â There is no sense merging it through my tree when you > > are the only user depending on it. > > > > Acked-by: Grant Likely <[email protected]> > > Thanks. I will do that change which you have suggested and take it > through the Samsung tree. But I was thinking that if it goes through > your tree, there would be less chances of a merge conflict in > include/linux/of_irq.h, a file that might see updates from other > sources.
Hmmm... is this going to be merged for v3.4 or v3.5? If it is v3.5, then yes it probably does need to go through my tree since there may be others that need to pull it into their trees. I was thinking that you needed this immediately. g.
_______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
