Philip Blundell writes:
> The IRQ numbers are currently completely arbitrary and I don't see any
> disadvantage to rearranging them like this. The fact that it will cause some
> machines to have an IRQ "hole" at 0..15 is scarcely a big deal, and you
> could always put something else there on such architectures.
Except when there is nothing else to put in there. Anyway, there needs to be
an incentive to cause new code to change.
_____
|_____| ------------------------------------------------- ---+---+-
| | 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]
