On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 12:27:45 -0600 Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:45:57AM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 11:36:50 -0600 > > > > > Weird. Yeah, no other platforms expect to get a phandle type > > > definition from the kernel headers. The only thing driving this > > > conversation is from arch/sparc/include/asm/Kbuild: > > > > > > header-y += openprom.h > > > > It was probably at one point for the sake of asm/openpromio.h but > > that header has no dependencies on openprom.h > > > > The only hit I can find in google code search, for non-kernel code, > > is the SILO bootloader. > > > > But that tree includes it's own copy of include/asm/openprom.h so > > the actual kernel copy isn't even used. > > > > I'd say we can stop exporting that header and also therefore not > > worry about making phandle_t visible to userspace. > > Yay! That simplifies everything, and I believe it also means that the > phandle/ihandle definitions can remain where they currently are in > linux/of.h > > Andres, can you post an updated series that includes removing > openprom.h from the header export list? > Sure, I'll just need to rework/retest the build. I've already done that with the openprom.h-removal patch (which was just sent). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
