[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A355155.4020500@grandegger.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:36:53 +0200
From: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>
To: "Hans J. Koch" <hjk@...utronix.de>
CC: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
devicetree-discuss@...abs.org, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] uio: add an of_genirq driver
Hans J. Koch wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 09:05:33PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>>> Anyway, 0 is a valid IRQ number, so it cannot be used as "no irq".
>> May I point you to this thread?
>>
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/21/221
>
> Linus is just plain wrong in this 4 year old mail.
See also this related thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/browse_thread/thread/9816648d5a8a1c9e/9968968188b5ab5a?lnk=gst&q=rx8025#9968968188b5ab5a
>
>> (The issue comes up once in a while as some archs still use NO_IRQ, some with
>> 0 some with -1)
>>
>>>> if (uioinfo->irq == NO_IRQ)
>>>> uioinfo->irq = UIO_IRQ_NONE;
>>> Sorry for my ignorance, but what is NO_IRQ? If I do
It's 0 on PowerPC but ARM seems still to use -1.
http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v2.6.30/arch/powerpc/include/asm/irq.h#L29
For x86 it's not defined at all. But as this code is for the PowerPC,
where using NO_IRQ seems still to be OK.
Wolfgang.
--
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