On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 06:16:15PM -0500, David Miller wrote: > From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:20:53 -0600 > > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 01:19:16PM +0530, Mugunthan V N wrote: > >> On Wednesday 14 January 2015 10:28 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> > CPSW never uses RX_THRESHOLD or MISC interrupts. In > >> > fact, they are always kept masked in their appropriate > >> > IRQ Enable register. > >> > > >> > Instead of allocating an IRQ that never fires, it's best > >> > to remove that code altogether and let future patches > >> > implement it if anybody needs those. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> > >> > >> Instead of introducing dummy ISR in previous patch and then removing in > >> this patch, both can be squashed into a single patch. > > > > sure they can. I decided to split to ease review and to make sure only > > one thing happens in a single patch. > > Indeed, I agree that adding something as a placeholder that just gets > immediately removed should be avoided unless it is extremely difficult > to do so. what does this mean ? you prefer both patches to be combined ? -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
