[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1sk4xe1fk.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:04:15 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/sfi: fix ioapic gsi range
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> writes:
> On 06/08/2010 01:10 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>> You may not use a 1-1 mapping if you don't have legacy irqs. Linux
>>>> irqs 0-15 are the ISA irqs you may not use those irq numbers for
>>
>> Linux IRQ 0 is "no IRQ assigned", except buried in certain bits of arch
>> specific historical knowledge.
>>
>> Also calling 1-15 ISA IRQ lines is also somewhat misleading given they
>> are almost certainly routing for PCI devices. "PIC IRQ routing" maybe -
>> but even that is not really true on a lot of PC hardware today except by
>> convention.
>
> Yes, but I gather IRQ/GSI 0 is an early-acquire primary timer on MRST on
> Moorestown just as on PC/AT... just a different one. Hence "special" in
> the same sort of way. I don't really care, personally, though.
Right. I have to admit I was stunned when I realized that request_irq
works and has worked for a long time with irq 0. I think that might
actually be a bug. setup_irq is traditionally used for irq 0.
Eric
--
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