Subject: [PATCH v4 13/19] ARM: remove mach .handle_irq for VIC users

From: [email-masked] (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 21:48:39 +0000

On Thursday 03 January 2013, Rob Herring wrote:
> From: Rob Herring <[email-masked]>
> 
> Now that the VIC initialization sets up the handle_arch_irq pointer, we
> can remove it for all machines and make it static.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Ryan Mallon <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Russell King <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Hubert Feurstein <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Alessandro Rubini <[email-masked]>
> Cc: STEricsson <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Ben Dooks <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Kyungmin Park <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Shiraz Hashim <[email-masked]>
> Cc: Rajeev Kumar <[email-masked]>
> Acked-by: H Hartley Sweeten <[email-masked]>
> Acked-by: Jamie Iles <[email-masked]>
> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <[email-masked]>
> Acked-by: Mark Brown <[email-masked]>
> Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email-masked]>
> Acked-by: Kukjin Kim <[email-masked]>
> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <[email-masked]>

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email-masked]>

However,

> index 6894df1..d5ee437 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/common/vic.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/common/vic.c
> @@ -83,6 +83,8 @@ static struct vic_device vic_devices[CONFIG_ARM_VIC_NR];
>  
>  static int vic_id;
>  
> +static void vic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs);
> +
>  /**
>   * vic_init2 - common initialisation code
>   * @base: Base of the VIC.
> @@ -466,7 +468,7 @@ static int handle_one_vic(struct vic_device *vic, struct pt_regs *regs)
>   * Keep iterating over all registered VIC's until there are no pending
>   * interrupts.
>   */
> -asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry vic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +static asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry vic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
>  {
>         int i, handled;
>  

I'm a big fan of the "no forward function declarations in .c files" rule. Can
I convince to reorder the file contents instead to avoid the forward declaration?

	Arnd