Hans J. Koch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 09:05:33PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>> Anyway, 0 is a valid IRQ number, so it cannot be used as "no irq". >> May I point you to this thread? >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/21/221 > > Linus is just plain wrong in this 4 year old mail.
See also this related thread. http://groups.google.com/group/rtc-linux/browse_thread/thread/9816648d5a8a1c9e/9968968188b5ab5a?lnk=gst&q=rx8025#9968968188b5ab5a > >> (The issue comes up once in a while as some archs still use NO_IRQ, some with >> 0 some with -1) >> >>>> if (uioinfo->irq == NO_IRQ) >>>> uioinfo->irq = UIO_IRQ_NONE; >>> Sorry for my ignorance, but what is NO_IRQ? If I do It's 0 on PowerPC but ARM seems still to use -1. http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v2.6.30/arch/powerpc/include/asm/irq.h#L29 For x86 it's not defined at all. But as this code is for the PowerPC, where using NO_IRQ seems still to be OK. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
