Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> Zero _is_ an appropriate choice, dammit!
> ...
> and then, if your actual _hardware_ things that the bit-pattern with all
> bits clear is a valid irq that can be used for normal devices,
PCI, for example. According to the spec, 0x00 is valid in the Interrupt Line
register and 0xFF indicates unconnected or unset.
> then what you do is you add a irq number translation layer (WHICH WE NEED
> AND HAVE _ANYWAY_) and make sure that nobody sees that on a _software_
> level.
So, by your argument, if you _have_ to have an IRQ translation layer anyway,
then what's the problem with having zero as a valid IRQ and using some other
value to indicate an invalid IRQ? As you say, you have a translation layer
anyway...
That would mean the arch maintainer could make the optimal choice for their
arch - perhaps picking 255 which would be consistent with PCI.
As far as FRV goes, I'm quite happy with 0 as being NO_IRQ, since the 0 bit in
the primary PIC registers is the master switch, not a per-level bit (there are
no source indicators unfortunately).
However, x86, x86_64, and others *do* treat IRQ 0 as being valid, and expose
it to userspace in various ways:
warthog>cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
0: 287035291 IO-APIC-edge timer
...
So on *that* basis, using IRQ 0 to indicate unset/invalid/etc would seem to be
bad.
David
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
