On Sat, 2004-06-26 at 15:02 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > There are a lot of drivers that assume 0 means no IRQ, including some > big x86 non-PC systems. Remember however that dev->irq is an OS private > cookie. In the x86 case for example we add 16 to APIC directed > interrupts both to split IRQs out and to avoid this problem.
There aren't _that_ many drivers which have this bug; certainly not non-ISA drivers. Even when you consider irq_t to be an OS-private cookie, that doesn't excuse this brokenness on the part of drivers -- they need fixing. > So if your board has an IRQ 0 and it is a problem - just change your > numbering scheme. That's a workaround, not a fix. Not really Linux style. Personally, I think we want to stop even thinking of it as a numbering scheme. IRQs are a tree, not a flat array. -- dwmw2 ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
