On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> And ? I really don't agree that just because 0 "looks kewl", we should
> enforce that and add some dodgy remapping all over the place.
That's not at all what I'm saying.
THE "BAD IRQ" MAPPING IS REQUIRED REGARDLESS.
If we make PCI_NO_IRQ be -1, then PC's need to remap 0 to that value. In
pretty much _exactly_ the same places that I suggest that the ppc code
should do it.
And there are several thousand times more PC's than there are other
things.
Got it?
Everybody who argues for PCI_NO_IRQ being -1 is arguing for all the same
things I argue that the ppc port should do, except they _also_ argue that
we should break now-working setups.
Is that so hard to understand? -1 is no different from 0, except it is in
many way sprovably _inferior_. Both need some mapping. But the -1 case
needs more of it, _and_ will result in a inferior end result (because the
nice "!dev->pci" thing suddenly doesn't work).
See? You're arguing for a technically inferior solution.
Linus
-
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]
