[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200803131854.45035.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 17:54:44 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, avorontsov@...mvista.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.25-rc5 1/2] gpiolib: dynamic gpio number allocation
On Thursday 13 March 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Shouldn't ARCH_NR_GPIOS be CONFIG_NR_GPIOS?
> >
> > No more than NR_IRQS is settable via Kconfig. And for
> > rather similar reasons. :)
>
> What are those reasons?
Keeping a lid on the amount of space wasted by unused
table entries is one factor; it's an implementation
tradeoff. In normal usage the number of IRQs (or GPIOs)
is defined by the board (or system) design, and there's
no real point to allowing more.
That said, NR_IRQS is kind of inflexible. It's not easy
to provide board-specific overrides for cases like having
a few FPGAs or other external IRQ (or GPIO!) controllers
which chain IRQs and plug into those tables...
Both could use a way to extend a platform-defined minimum
to support a configurable number of external controllers.
Lacking that, both have somewhat ad-hoc solutions to make
sure board variants can be set up with the same kernel.
It basically boils down to making sure there are some extra
entries at end-of-table, and policies to allocate them.
- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists