* Russell King <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, the argument _against_ making things generic is that they
> become less optimised for specific architectures. I'm still not
> convinced that the genirq stuff is as optimal for ARM as the existing
> code is, so I've little motivation to move to the genirq stuff.
> (Though I will try to make things easier for those who would like to.)
i'm quite convinced that the final phase of the genirq conversion will
work out fine: because it mostly meant the conceptual adoption of your
ARM IRQ layer (the irqchips approach), with compatibility mechanisms for
all the other arches, with some minor SMP improvements ontop of it. So
i'd be surprised if you found _that_ one inadequate :-) If there's any
detail that ARM doesnt need, i'm sure we can find a non-runtime solution
for it. But i think i digress.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
