> We could have done it for interrupts too. A "struct irqnum" that has a bit
> that specifies "valid". That would work. But it tends to be painful, so it
> really has to give you something more than "zero is disabled".
>
> It's just not worth it.
>
> And it's why I decreed, that the ONLY SANE THING is to just let people do
> the obvious thing:
>
> if (!dev->irq)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> you don't have to know ANYTHING, and that code just works, and just looks
> obvious. And you know what? If it causes a bit of pain for some platform
> maintainer, I don't care one whit. Because it's obviously much better than
> the alternatives.
I'd rather have dev->irq be a struct interrupt * :-) The NULL check
would then make more sense and we completely remove "numbers" from
drivers, they have to obtain their struct interrupt via some interrupt
mapping code....
Ben.
-
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]
