Re: [PATCH 4/5] Centralise NO_IRQ definition
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Date: Mon Nov 21 2005 - 17:11:52 EST
On Mon, 2005-11-21 at 13:51 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > oh well [*]. Then it's gotta be the !dev->irq.valid thing i guess.
> No it's not.
> The ppc PCI probing could trivilly just turn a 0 into 256 (or equivalent),
> and mask off the low 7 bits when installing the handler. They know the
> interrupt is _really_ 0 from other sources (ie they have a different
> firmware, with explicit callbacks, and/or hardcoded knowledge).
The ppc irq handling is more complex than that due to the wide range of
different hardware. We parse the irq tree from OF and assign them to
ranges of numbers allocated per controller. Adding some remapping of
some numbers would add complexity and possible bugs.
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/