Re: [PATCH] PCI: rcar-gen4: Inline GIC_TRANSLATER offset macro
Marek Vasut <[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 | <[email protected]> |
On 7/14/26 1:00 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > 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. I will send a V2 shortly.