Philip Blundell writes:
> Having just finished picking up the pieces after the IRQ renumbering
> occasioned by merging the EBSA-285 and NetWinder code, I'd like to propose
> that we do it all over again. :-)
I propose not to do it all over again. It's silly to have IRQs 0 - 15 unused
on machines which don't have ISA interrupts.
> Life for a lot of code would be easier if the 16 ISA irqs (on machines where
> they exist) were in the traditional 0..15 range rather than the 16..24 slot
> they currently occupy. Network drivers for instance often calculate their
> IRQ numbering based on jumper settings or the contents of an EEPROM.
>
> I think Pat may have brought this up once before and maybe even implemented it
> in the NetWinder line of kernels (I only have a very old 2.0.31 at the moment)
> but it never seemed to get taken up in the 2.1 series.
I'm not aware of Pat actually implementing it, since it seems that it's not
required.
My belief here is that there is too much hard coding of magic numbers in the
Linux kernel, and this is something that as the kernel starts running on more
and more architectures, it ought to be got away from.
Not every architecture is a PC.
_____
|_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
| | Russell King [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- ---
| | | | http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/~rmk/armlinux.html / / |
| +-+-+ --- -+-
/ | THE developer of ARM Linux |+| /|\
/ | | | --- |
+-+-+ ------------------------------------------------- /\\\ |
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
