Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:35:27 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition |
| |
* Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar writes: > > > is there any architecture where irq 0 is a legitimate setting that could > > occur in drivers, and which would make NO_IRQ define of 0 non-practical? > > 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.
oh well [*]. Then it's gotta be the !dev->irq.valid thing i guess. OTOH that has some disadvantages too: any normal access to dev->irq.nr will mean implicit 0xffffffff (or 0xffffffffffffffff) masking generated by the compiler. Also, unless there's some compiler trick, tons of drivers will be affected - because dev->irq isnt valid anymore. A quick grep suggests 5381 lines of code affected, spread out in 917 files. Quite impractical. So we are back to square one and Matthew's patch(es).
Ingo
[*] is there any weird architecture that hardcodes IRQ -1 to some device? ;-) - 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/
| |