[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c9483d7f-7f5f-dd29-2bba-5659a1dae7e0@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:20:46 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...il.com>
To: David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
'John Paul Adrian Glaubitz' <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>,
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
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
IOW, try arguing with Linus. :-)
> David
MBR, Sergey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists