On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h >> >> > index 5458380..6c61992 100644 >> >> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h >> >> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/irq.h >> >> > @@ -10,6 +10,10 @@ >> >> > #include <asm/apicdef.h> >> >> > #include <asm/irq_vectors.h> >> >> > >> >> > +#define NO_IRQ (-1) >> >> > + >> >> >> >> no. irq 0 means no irq, and all patches adding #define NO_IRQ to x86 >> >> have been nacked. (Basically, all architectures using -1 to mean no >> >> irq are considered broken. ARM is one of the few (albeit large) >> >> holdouts. I've got a patch kicking around to change microblaze to use >> >> 0 for no_irq too. >> > >> > OK, bogon there.. The question is: how to get rid of it, since the >> > generic of/irq.c >> > code references it? >> >> Fix microblaze, then NO_IRQ references can be removed from of/irq.c >> >> g. > > OK... Michal: I see you were against this patch... > What is your current thinking?
John Williams reluctantly agreed that going to NO_IRQ == 0 was the right thing to do. Last we left it I was going to respin my patch, but I haven't had a chance to do so yet. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
