Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition | From | Benjamin Herrenschmidt <> | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:09:13 +1100 |
| |
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 13:51 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > oh well [*]. Then it's gotta be the !dev->irq.valid thing i guess. > > No it's not. > > The ppc PCI probing could trivilly just turn a 0 into 256 (or equivalent), > and mask off the low 7 bits when installing the handler. They know the > interrupt is _really_ 0 from other sources (ie they have a different > firmware, with explicit callbacks, and/or hardcoded knowledge).
The ppc irq handling is more complex than that due to the wide range of different hardware. We parse the irq tree from OF and assign them to ranges of numbers allocated per controller. Adding some remapping of some numbers would add complexity and possible bugs.
Ben.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |