> > Zero is "no IRQ", please use that for polling not "< 0"
> >
> However, platform_get_irq() will happily return IRQ#0, and it's a valid
> vector on plenty of machines. NO_IRQ is also < 0 on at least FR-V, ARM,
> blackin, PA-RISC, some PowerPC, and even IDE.
No it is not. The platform IRQ code is responsible for ensuring that 0 is
not a real IRQ and doing any neccessary remapping.
Large parts of the kernel assume that
- IRQ 0 is "no IRQ assigned" (serial, pci, ide etc )
- IRQ is *unsigned*
> We do have some devices that are physically on IRQ#0 that otherwise work
> fine, they aren't ATA devices mind you, but to claim that IRQ#0 isn't a
> valid vector is not in line with what hardware actually does, whether
> it's a good idea or not. In our case the IRQ vector maps to an exception
> offset, which we bump down to zero. We could force an off-by-1 there so
> that the math that indexes IRQ#0 is bumped up one, but that entails
> fixing up every one of our IRQ numbers for no obvious gain.
>
> I don't really see any value in purposely crippling the range of
> allowable vectors for these machines. Though I don't mind switching to a
> NO_IRQ comparison instead of the < 0 case, so both can be handled.
NO_IRQ is an obsolete old-IDE hack.
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.2/2197.html
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.2/1789.html
Alan
-
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]