[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080623152045.07a21216@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 15:20:45 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [patch] x86 supports NO_IRQ convention
On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:29:36 -0700
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> On Monday 23 June 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
> > Zero is not a valid IRQ in the kernel mapping of things.
>
> That's counter-factual:
There are historical reasons for the timer tick (which isn't visible
outside arch code) being 0 on x86.
> I certainly agree it'd be convenient to be able to just test
> for IRQ being nonzero.
0 means "no IRQ" in things like dev->irq. Lots of driver code assumes
this and it has been decreed 'correct'.
Alan
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists