On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:46 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 15:07 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Fri, 1 Oct 2010, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 23:18 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > > plain text document attachment (powerpc-use-new-allocator.patch) >> > > Use the new functions and free the descriptor when the virq is >> > > destroyed. >> > >> > Looks ok as a first pass, but we should go further and replace the >> > allocator we have in powerpc to use yours instead. >> > >> > Then I should get rid of my big irq_map that maps virq to HW number & >> > domain pointers and instead put those in the irq data. Any objection to >> > me sticking some archdata there for that purpose ? >> >> No, though if we can avoid another void pointer and have a sensible >> data structure for it would be nice. > > Yes, I'm thinking about an arch defined structure like I did for struct > device. Before doing that, I'd like to see what data members are still needed. The powerpc use-case is quite sane, and it may turn out to be common code after all. I certainly want to port the PowerPC functionality to ARM. g. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
