On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 16:52 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Thu, 2012-03-08 at 14:51 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > Hi Mikey, > > > > On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:33:56 +1100 Michael Neuling <mikey@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Surely we only need SPARSE_IRQ now and not MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ. > > > > > > In fact, keeping MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ seems to make SPARSE_IRQ user > > > selectable, which we don't want anymore since ad5b7f1350c2. > > > > Yes, indeed. I will fix up the merge resolution for tomorrow. > > This is my fault. Grant's patch had a collision and I manually fixed it > up. While doing that, I put back MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ which the patch > originally took out. Actually, I didn't keep MAY_HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ, I kept HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ. If I remove it, then I get Kconfig warnings: warning: (PPC) selects SPARSE_IRQ which has unmet direct dependencies (HAVE_GENERIC_HARDIRQS && HAVE_SPARSE_IRQ) Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
