Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:21:17 +0100 | From | Ben Dooks <> | Subject | Re: Interrupts & total mess |
| |
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 04:07:58PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > Ok so my simple project of adding NO_IRQ definitions all over the place > is turning into a nightmare for various reasons (the probe_irq_* stuff > beeing one of them, as it currently prevents using -1, so I'm leaning > toward defining NO_IRQ as beeing INT_MIN, nothing against that ?) > > However, while trying to do that in a simple way, that is with a > #ifndef NO_IRQ > #define NO_IRQ (INT_MIN) > #endif > > Somewhere in some generic piece of include after we has some asm/* stuff > included to let the arch a chance to override it, I figured that, first, > there are a number of places where "irq" is defined as beeing unsigned > long... So neither INT_MIN nor -1 are appropriate. Then I noticed while > looking for the right files to add this stuff that we have, at least: > > include/linux/interrupts.h > include/linux/irq.h > include/linux/hardirq.h > include/asm-*/irq.h > include/asm-*/hw_irq.h > include/asm-*/hardirq.h
also see the drivers/base/platform.c for the definition of platform_get_irq() which also should be considered for this (see earlier posting about the return code).
-- Ben (ben@fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/)
'a smiley only costs 4 bytes' - 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/
| |