Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 Nov 2005 11:21:50 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition |
| |
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005, David Woodhouse wrote: > > This is true. If we're suddenly going to start pretending that IRQ 0 > isn't a valid interrupt merely on the basis that "x86 doesn't use it"¹, > then we can't really go making an exception to allow us to use IRQ 0 on > i386.
Of _course_ "irq0" is a valid irq. On PC's, it's usually the timer interrupt.
It's the "dev->irq" _cookie_ zero that means it is does not have an irq.
If you have a physical "irq 0" that is bound to a device, it needs a cookie, and that cookie can't be 0, because that means the device has no interrupt.
How hard is that to understand? Why do people mix these up?
Linus
| |