Re: [PATCH] PCI: rcar-gen4: Inline GIC_TRANSLATER offset macro
Bjorn Helgaas <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.linux-renesas-soc,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-devicetree,org.kernel.vger.linux-doc,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-pci |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20260714110041.GA1349622@bhelgaas> |
On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 08:05:38PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 7/13/26 7:54 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 03:35:10PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > On 7/10/26 10:30 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > > > On Thu, 09 Jul 2026 21:10:03 +0100, > > > > Marek Vasut <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Instead of pulling in the whole linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h , > > > > > copy the one GITS_TRANSLATER register offset macro directly into > > > > > the driver. This repairs the ability to build the driver on > > > > > non-ARM non-GIC targets the way it was possible until now, which > > > > > retains good build test coverage. > > > ... > > > > > So in the end, it is either this patch or limit the build to > > > arm/arm64 . At least this patch still allows building this driver > > > with more compilers on the various build bots, so I would opt for > > > this patch here. > > > > I like the build coverage, but duplicating the #define doesn't really > > seem good to me. It makes readability worse because cscope/tags now > > sees two definitions without an obvious reason. > > I can rename the macro, or ... sigh ... I can reduce the driver to build > only on ARM/ARM64. Which one do you prefer ? I think a dependency on ARM/ARM64 is preferable.