On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 16:33 +0100, Albert Herranz wrote: > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 16:28 -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > >>> +unsigned int flipper_pic_get_irq(void) > >>> +{ > >>> + void __iomem *io_base = flipper_irq_host->host_data; > >>> + int irq; > >>> + u32 irq_status; > >>> + > >>> + irq_status = in_be32(io_base + FLIPPER_ICR) & > >>> + in_be32(io_base + FLIPPER_IMR); > >>> + if (irq_status == 0) > >>> + return -1; /* no more IRQs pending */ > >> NO_IRQ_IGNORE > > > > Why no just 0 ? (aka NO_IRQ) > > > > I didn't know about 0 (I thought that was another valid interrupt).
0 is a valid hw number. It's not a valid linux "virq" number. In fact, that's part of the reason why we generalized the whole virq thingy :-) Because back then, Linus made the statement that 0 should never be a valid IRQ number in linux. That also allowed us to make sure that 1..15 are never allocated to anything but a legacy 8259 to avoid all sorts of problems with crackpot legacy x86 originated drivers who hard coded some of these interrupts. > I was used to -1 to tell that no IRQs were pending (at least from the > ARCH=ppc days) :) Yup, we changed that :-) > > Or do you know you are getting lots of spurrious that you don't want to > > account ? > > > > No, this is not the case here. Cheers, Ben. > > Cheers, > > Ben. > > > > Thanks, > Albert _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev