[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b6a22e7f96fd635fa00eebbfc0accf01e971061b.camel@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 10:15:43 +0200
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
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
Hi David!
On Wed, 2023-07-12 at 08:12 +0000, David Laight wrote:
> From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> > 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+ ?
That would make things more complicated as IRQ0 would have to be
handled individually.
> At least that would only cause issues for code that needed
> to use IRQ_0.
What issues are you seeing or expecting?
> (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.)
It's invalid for driver code, not for architecture code.
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' Physicist
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Powered by blists - more mailing lists