lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.075 / U:1.040 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site