Re: [patch 00/47] Sparse irq rework

[Grant Likely]

On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 09:57:33AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-10-03 at 21:16 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> > And I really do not see a point to have a truly random 64bit number
> > space for interrupts. Especially the dynamically allocated interrupts
> > (MSI & co) do not care about the number space at all. They care about
> > getting a unique number, nothing else.
> 
> Actually, some implementations care about the actual number... but then,
> at least on powerpc, those are hidden behind the virq translation so we
> really don't care :-)

In fact, if it wasn't for all the embedded platforms where some hard
coded irq number is encoded into the static device tables
(platform_device et al.) I'd argue that the irq number is completely
meaningless outside of the core irq code, and from a device driver
point of view it is just an opaque cookie.

Also from the userspace point of view, the attachment to a particular
irq controller instance is far more interesting than the specific irq
number.

g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/