On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 12:10:15PM +0000, Alan wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:54:32 +0100 (MET)
> Stefan Roese <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Let's see, if I got this right. You mean that on such a platform, where 0 is a
> > valid physical IRQ, we should assign another value as virtual IRQ number (not
> > 0 and not -1 of course). And then the platform "pic" implementation should
> > take care of the remapping of these virtual IRQ numbers to the physical
> > numbers.
> >
> > Correct?
>
> Absolutely correct in all the detail.
Since IRQ0 is not valid, can we arrange for the generic interrupt
infrastructure to always fail it's allocation, and then remove the
utterly unused bloatful irq_desc[0] ?
Didn't think so since x86 folk would scream. Wait a moment, x86 can
map IRQ0 to some other number for the timer interrupt, just like
other architectures are being forced to map their UART interrupts.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
-
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]
