Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition | From | David Woodhouse <> | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:13:11 +0000 |
| |
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 22:20 +0000, Alan Cox wrote: > > 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.
Remapping in that way sounds like a half-arsed hack to work around the problem which Matthew is trying to fix properly by using NO_IRQ == -1.
Yes, there are drivers which are currently broken and assume irq 0 is 'no irq'. They are broken. Let's just fix them and not continue the brain-damage.
-- dwmw2
- 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/
| |