On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Michael Ellerman
wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:44 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> Why not make sparse IRQs manditory for all platforms? Is there a
>> performance concern with doing so? From a maintenance perspective,
>> I'd rather see IRQ descs manged in one wa
On Wed, 2009-10-14 at 12:44 -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Michael Ellerman
> wrote:
> > Defining CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ enables generic code that gets rid of the
> > static irq_desc array, and replaces it with an array of pointers to
> > irq_descs.
> >
> > It also allow
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Michael Ellerman
wrote:
> Defining CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ enables generic code that gets rid of the
> static irq_desc array, and replaces it with an array of pointers to
> irq_descs.
>
> It also allows node local allocation of irq_descs, however we
> currently don't ha
