From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753538Ab1HKUCe (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:02:34 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:42538 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753494Ab1HKUCd (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:02:33 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 21:02:10 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Stephen Warren Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Colin Cross , Erik Gilling , Olof Johansson , "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: tegra: Fix to have necessary #includes Message-ID: <20110811200210.GB24166@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF04AEA24CD0@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF04AEA24CD0@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:49:47PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > Russell King wrote at Thursday, August 11, 2011 1:36 PM: > > On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:05:52PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > Without this, EINVAL isn't defined, and type bool isn't declared. > > > This leads to compilation failures. > > > > An alternative approach would be to convert tegra to be able to use > > the gpiolib __gpio_to_irq() for the on-SoC stuff, and eliminate > > irq_to_gpio(). > > > > Would it be possible to do that instead? > > That should work too. > > I posted a couple patches last Friday to remove irq_to_gpio: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/5/343 > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/5/342 > > Later in the thread, you said you would merge them into your branch to > avoid merge conflicts with the other GPIO work you were doing. I suggested it would be a good idea. Now that I've published those changes, any chance of having some updated patches in the patch system please? > For gpio_to_irq, yes, I believe we get rid of it pretty easily; we'd > just need to implement gpio-tegra.c's gpio_chip.to_irq function. Should > I cook up a patch based on top of linux-next plus the two patches above > to do that instead? Yes please, again eventually to the patch system once Grant has acked it to avoid the otherwise certain conflicts. Thanks for doing this.