[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EDF96D2.9070808@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 10:39:46 -0600
From: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>, John Linn <John.Linn@...inx.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] microblaze/irq: Change NO_IRQ to 0
Linus,
On 12/07/2011 10:05 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> This patch changes the Microblaze NO_IRQ setting from -1 to 0 to bring
>> it in line with most of the rest of the kernel. It also prepares for
>> Microblaze eventually supporting multiple interrupt controllers by
>> breaking the assumption that hwirq# == Linux IRQ#. The Linux IRQ
>> number is just a cookie with no guarantee of a direct relationship
>> with the hardware irq arrangement.
>
> This looks really nice and would probably be a great example for other
> architectures with the same issue.
>
> My only (small) nit is that just from a debuggability standpoint I'd
> actually suggest keeping the "translated" and "hardware" interrupt
> numbers totally disjoint, which would seem to be trivial - make the
> offset be 32 instead of 1. Sure, some NR_IRQ arrays would end up being
> a bit bigger that way, but it would allow for trivially seeing whether
> anybody reports the raw or translated irq numbers by just looking at
> the number. That could reduce lots of confusion if somebody ends up
> having the old non-translated number hardcoded etc.
>
> It would also potentially allow for actual debug checks - having code
> like "WARN_ON_ONCE(irq < 32)" in some arch-specific irq controller
> registration path etc, which is much harder to do with the overlapping
> numbers.
Agreed. I debated making it 16 just to skip the legacy interrupts as
we're doing on ARM. So there's 2 benefits to skipping to 32.
Anyway, I'll leave it to someone that can actually build and test this.
> But it's nice to see how small the patch *can* be.
If only ARM was this easy...
Rob
--
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