[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
    On Maw, 2005-11-22 at 08:25 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
    > Ingo Molnar writes:
    > > is there any architecture where irq 0 is a legitimate setting that could
    > > occur in drivers, and which would make NO_IRQ define of 0 non-practical?
    > Yes, G5 powermacs have the SATA controller on irq 0. So if we can't
    > use irq 0, I can't get to my hard disk. :) Other powermacs also use
    > irq 0 for various things, as do embedded PPC machines.

    G5 powermacs have the SATA controller on physical IRQ value 0. Linux IRQ
    values don't need to exactly map. One of the x86 ports handles 'real IRQ
    0' exactly this way. Its a cookie. Sure would benefit from a function
    for turning an IRQ into a description as a cleanup.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-11-21 22:51    [W:0.018 / U:233.220 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site