[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b02489c7-96de-b6ed-07b9-9ba423af34c6@roeck-us.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 08:38:38 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...il.com>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
'John Paul Adrian Glaubitz' <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: Avoid using IRQ0 on SH3 and SH4
On 7/12/23 01:20, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 7/12/23 11:12 AM, David Laight wrote:
>
>>> Sent: 09 July 2023 00:13
>> ....
>>> Looking at arch/sh/boards/mach-r2d/irq.c, there is some IRQ translation going
>>> on and maybe that's the part where we need to correct the offset by 16?
>>
>> Would it be less problematic to use (say) 16 for IRQ_0
>> leaving IRQ_1+ as 1+ ?
>
> I don't think so.
>
>> At least that would only cause issues for code that needed
>> to use IRQ_0.
>>
>> (It has to be said that making IRQ 0 invalid seemed wrong
>> to me. x86 (IBM PC) gets away with it because IRQ 0 is
>> always assigned to platform specific hardware.)
>
> Not only x86, IIRC.
> Have you seen the commit below?
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=ce753ad1549cbe9ccaea4c06a1f5fa47432c8289
>
Quoting:
using IRQ0 is considered invalid (according to Linus) outside the arch/ code
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The changes here were made _in_ the arch code. While there may be valid
arguments for doing that, quoting the above commit as reason isn't really
sufficient.
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists