[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition

* Paul Mackerras <> 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-> 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).


[*] 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
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-11-21 22:39    [W:0.124 / U:1.036 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site