On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Russell King 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.
>
> 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.
I think, what Russell means, is this:
#define is_real_interrupt(irq) ((irq) != NO_IRQ)
where the NO_IRQ macro has been introduced a LONG time ago specifically
for this purpose, and is conveniently defined on some platforms to
(unsigned int)-1 or similar, including asm-powerpc/irq.h. And yes, this
has been discussed MANY times.
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski
-
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]
