| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
The dc21285 requests a number of IRQs that it doesn't really
care whether they get added. Change to use a macro that ensures
that at-least the user gets warned if they fail to add, which
also stops the warnings from __unused_result on request_irq().
dc21285.c:337: warning: ignoring return value of 'request_irq', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
dc21285.c:339: warning: ignoring return value of 'request_irq', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
dc21285.c:341: warning: ignoring return value of 'request_irq', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
dc21285.c:343: warning: ignoring return value of 'request_irq', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
dc21285.c:345: warning: ignoring return value of 'request_irq', declared with attribute warn_unused_result
Signed-off-by: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
|
|
Netwinder was using gpio_xxx names which could clash with the GPIO
layer. Add a 'nw_' prefix to ensure that these remain separate.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Lots of places in arch/arm were needlessly including linux/ptrace.h,
resumably because we used to pass a struct pt_regs to interrupt
handlers. Now that we don't, all these ptrace.h includes are
redundant.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Some ARM platforms were still broken as a result of the IRQ register
passing changes, mostly due to a missing linux/irq.h include.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Untested, but this should fix up the bulk of the totally mechanical
issues, and should make the actual detail fixing easier.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
|
|
Patch from Daniel Jacobowitz
The ARM kernel has several uses of asm("foo%?"). %? is a GCC internal
modifier used to output conditional execution predicates. However, no
version of GCC supports conditionalizing asm statements. GCC 4.2 will
correctly expand %? to the empty string in user asms. Earlier versions may
reuse the condition from the previous instruction. In 'if (foo) asm
("bar%?");' this is somewhat likely to be right... but not reliable.
So, the only safe thing to do is to remove the uses of %?. I believe
the tlbflush.h occurances were supposed to be removed before, based
on the comment about %? not working at the top of that file.
Old versions of GCC could omit branches around user asms if the asm didn't
mark the condition codes as clobbered. This problem hasn't been seen on any
recent (3.x or 4.x) GCC, but it could theoretically happen. So, where
%? was removed a cc clobber was added.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@codesourcery.com>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
The irgflags consolidation did conflict with the ARM to generic IRQ
conversion and was not applied for ARM. Fix it up.
Use the new IRQF_ constants and remove the SA_INTERRUPT define
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
|
|
Convert all uses of kmalloc followed by memset to use kzalloc instead.
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
|
|
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
|
