Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:48:38 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>, Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
       Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: New consolidate irqs vs . probe_irq_*()
Message-ID: <20041020084838.GA25798@elte.hu>
References: <16758.3807.954319.110353@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20041020083358.GB23396@elte.hu> <1098261745.6263.9.camel@gaston>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1098261745.6263.9.camel@gaston>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1050
Lines: 24


* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:

> Do you have any objection if I send a patch making the whole
> probe_irq_* stuff optional on a CONFIG_ option ? (turning it into nops
> like we used to have on ppc until now, if the option isn't set).
> 
> I really don't want to mess with that racy mecanism that makes sense
> for ISA only afaik, and it seems some drivers are trying to use it now
> that it's there (/me looks toward yenta_socket) and I'm afraid of the
> consequences since I cannot see how that thing can work properly in
> the first place ;)

yeah. I've put it into a separate autoprobe.c file specifically for that
reason, you can exclude it in the Makefile and can provide your own
architecture version. Or should we make the no-autoprobing choice
generic perhaps?

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/