[PATCH 2/2] x86: of: define irq functions to allow drivers/of/* to build on x86

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:21:35 -0600
> Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 08:14:58PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 06:01:51AM -0700, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > >  - Define a stub irq_create_of_mapping for x86 as a stop-gap
> > > > > solution until drivers/of/irq is further along.
> > > > >  - Define irq_dispose_mapping for x86 to appease of_i2c.c
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Andres Salomon <dilinger at queued.net>
> > > > 
> > > > Applied to my test-devicetree branch.  I'll need an ack from the
> > > > x86 maintainers before I put it into my -next branch.
> > > 
> > > The purpose of the patch is not clear to me. What does it do and
> > > why? 
> > 
> > It allows CONFIG_OF to be enabled on x86 without a build failure.
> > 
> > > The changelog says it's a stopgap measure - what exactly is the
> > > long term plan and how long will it take?
> > 
> > It is a stop gap because it performs a trivial direct map of an IRQ
> > number in the device tree data structure to a Linux irq number.  This
> > works for a single IRQ controller, but falls apart when cascaded
> > controller are described in the device tree.  The long term plan is to
> > have the drivers/of/ code handling the mapping intelligently like
> > powerpc currently does.
> > 
> > g.
> > 
> 
> Any additional comments (ACKs, NACKs, etc) on the patches?  If I need
> to rework it (or them), I can certainly make the patch description
> longer.

Fine with me, but you could make the "mapping" function an inline as
well. While at it, some sensible changelog would be helpful :)

Thanks,

	tglx