[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48A9F407.2080901@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:13:27 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: change msi-x vector to 32bit
Alan Cox wrote:
>>> I completely agree that irq number 99.9% of the time should be a completely
>>> abstract token.
>> Sure, although one nice reason for doing the abstraction first is that
>> it stops people imposing fragile numbering schemes on irq ...
>
> On a lot of embedded devices IRQ numbers are not abstract and not
> fragile. I'm all for abstracting out interrupts nicely but it isn't just
> the legacy PC cases to consider - a lot of embedded is at least as
> defined, rigid and meaningfully numbered as ISA.
>
Note that James said:
> Sure, but you have 16 (or whatever) legacy interrupts. You still call
> them 1-16 (or ISA-1 through ISA-16). By the time we reach this stage,
> we're essentially doing string table lookups for the interrupts, so
> there's no need to pre-allocate them (except as a possible arch
> implementation detail).
I think the point is that if we're going to have a meaningful name, it
should be a string, so we can impose whatever naming scheme makes sense
for the platform. Even on embedded platforms it may mean that the flat
number scheme isn't what makes sense.
-hpa
--
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