Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
From: Alan Cox
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 16:48:42 EST
On Maw, 2005-11-22 at 08:25 +1100, 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.
G5 powermacs have the SATA controller on physical IRQ value 0. Linux IRQ
values don't need to exactly map. One of the x86 ports handles 'real IRQ
0' exactly this way. Its a cookie. Sure would benefit from a function
for turning an IRQ into a description as a cleanup.
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/