On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> ok, understood. I'm wondering, why is there any need to do a PCI_NO_IRQ?
> Why not just a generic NO_IRQ. It's not like we can or want to make them
> different in the future. The interrupt vector number is a generic thing
> that attaches to the platform via request_irq() - there is nothing 'PCI'
> about it. So the PCI layer shouldnt pretend it has its own IRQ
> abstraction - the two are forcibly joined. The same goes for
> pci_valid_irq() - we should only have valid_irq(). Am i missing
> anything?
The last patch in this vein will delete PCI_NO_IRQ, replacing it with
NO_IRQ. To make that final patch small, I wanted to introduce an
abstraction that PCI drivers could use. Possibly it's not well thought
out. Do you think we should put in the explicit compares against
PCI_NO_IRQ as we find drivers that care and then do a big sweep when we
think we've found them all?
-
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]
