Re: [PATCH 00/48] Make the IRQCHIP_DECLARE macro globally accessible

["Joël Porquet" <joel@porquet.org>]

On Thursday, July 02, 2015 12:33:05 PM Vineet Gupta wrote:
> On Thursday 02 July 2015 04:02 AM, Joel Porquet wrote:
> > At the moment the IRQCHIP_DECLARE macro is only declared locally in
> > 'drivers/irqchip/irqchip.h'. That prevents from using it directly in
> > arch/*
> > directories whenever irqchip drivers only exist there, which happens in a
> > few cases (e.g. arc, arm, microblaze and mips).
> > 
> > This patch makes the macro to be globally defined, in
> > include/linux/irqchip.h, and thus usable for arch-specific declarations
> > of irqchip drivers. In this way, it is very similar to what clocksource
> > does (ie CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE is defined in
> > include/linux/clocksource.h).
> > 
> > I split up everything into patches to make the integration easier. Please
> > let me know if it's not, and in such case how to make it better.
> > 
> > For now, patch 01 of this series transfers the declaration of the macro
> > IRQCHIP_DECLARE to the global header 'include/linux/irqchip.h'. The
> > following patches, from 02 to 47, modify all the irqchip drivers that use
> > IRQCHIP_DECLARE, one by one. And finally, the last patch 48 removes the
> > private and now useless header 'drivers/irqchip/irqchip.h'.
> 
> Hi Joel,
> 
> I don't see the rest of series on lkml and/or the patch which touches
> arch/arc. Also, you may wanna redo this after 4.2-rc1 anyways. For ARC
> atleast, there's a new intc which would also require similar fixup. There
> might be others ....
> 
> Thx,
> -Vineet

Hi Vineet (and all),

Sorry for the mistake, I hope I didn't spam anyone (too much). I realized to 
late that sending about fifty patches to 26 recipients was probably not a good 
idea, and my smtp provider would have blocked me before the end anyway.

Therefore I will follow your suggestion and wait until after 4.2-rc1. Then 
I'll resubmit a new patchset that takes into account the new intc(s) as well.

But since this patchset affects many files across several drivers and 
architectures, what would be the best way to submit it?

Would it be OK to send the cover to all the maintainers/mailing-lists involved 
in order to inform them that a patchset is affecting their respective 
subsystem, but to send the patches only on the kernel mailing-list?

And/or is there someone in particular who is in charge to integrate such a 
transversal patchset?

Thanks,
Joël