lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.056 / U:8.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site