Re: New consolidate irqs vs . probe_irq_*()

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Wed, 2004-10-20 at 21:01, Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 08:50:56PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > yenta_socket has always used it.  Its rather fundamental to the way
> > > that the PCMCIA core has worked for the last I don't know how many
> > > years.
> > > 
> > > Nothing new.  Maybe something in PPC64 land broke recently?
> > 
> > No, what happened is that until the big irq unification, ppc and ppc64
> > probe_* were no-ops. Probing of "ISA" irqs is a big no-no on most non
> > x86 architectures.
> 
> Well, I've no plans to rewrite that bit of PCMCIA anytime soon,
> especially as my time is very precious over the next two months
> or so.

I'm not asking you to do so :)

> Remember that PCMCIA effectively has its own IRQ router which requires
> the PCMCIA code to know which IRQs are physically connected and which
> aren't.  Unfortunately, there's no way to get that information as far
> as I know except by the published method in the code.

It's fine if the probe_* thing does nothing, though we could imagine a
specific arch callback at one point...

> So even if I had time to look at this, I doubt anything would change.
> I think it's a necessary evil.
-- 
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

-
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/