> >But I guess using GSI/vector internally only would be fine. > > The last time I tried to name a variable "gsi" instead of "irq", > Linus launched into a tirade that "GSI" doesn't mean anything to him, > or anybody else that googles it. On the other hand "IRQ" means > something > to everybody, and if you google it you find all kinds of interesting > interrupt-related things. > > My point was that "IRQ" means so many "interrupt related" things to > different people in different contexts, that it is effectively > meaningless. > > But Linus was not swayed. >
Oh Len, let's call this thing IRQ why not ;) I kind of agree that this is more popular and well-known term, like an old trade mark. I just see all those layers of code right now to map those to GSIs, pins, whatever it is, that can be replaced with... well, much smaller layers of code :) and maybe less "assumpti-ous" too. --Natalie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
