Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Nov 2005 10:05:59 -0700 | From | Matthew Wilcox <> | Subject | Re: First steps towards making NO_IRQ a generic concept |
| |
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 05:20:59PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > ok, understood. I'm wondering, why is there any need to do a PCI_NO_IRQ? > Why not just a generic NO_IRQ. It's not like we can or want to make them > different in the future. The interrupt vector number is a generic thing > that attaches to the platform via request_irq() - there is nothing 'PCI' > about it. So the PCI layer shouldnt pretend it has its own IRQ > abstraction - the two are forcibly joined. The same goes for > pci_valid_irq() - we should only have valid_irq(). Am i missing > anything?
The last patch in this vein will delete PCI_NO_IRQ, replacing it with NO_IRQ. To make that final patch small, I wanted to introduce an abstraction that PCI drivers could use. Possibly it's not well thought out. Do you think we should put in the explicit compares against PCI_NO_IRQ as we find drivers that care and then do a big sweep when we think we've found them all? - 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/
| |