Re: [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30
> --- > From: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: x86_64 irq: Fix comments after changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30 applied thanks -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30
--- From: Yinghai Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: x86_64 irq: Fix comments after changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30 applied thanks -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30
"Yinghai Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 3/7/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The comment fixes or some variation on them are needed. > > Please check the patch about comment. > > YH > Looks good to me. I've cleaned up the description and placed the patch inline for easier consumption. Everything this patch touches is a comment. So it is as safe as they come. And the patch appears to apply to the Linus's latest tree. --- From: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: x86_64 irq: Fix comments after changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30 Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c b/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c index 21d95b7..4894266 100644 --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c +++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ /* * ISA PIC or low IO-APIC triggered (INTA-cycle or APIC) interrupts: - * (these are usually mapped to vectors 0x20-0x2f) + * (these are usually mapped to vectors 0x30-0x3f) */ /* @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ void init_8259A(int auto_eoi) * outb_p - this has to work on a wide range of PC hardware. */ outb_p(0x11, 0x20); /* ICW1: select 8259A-1 init */ - outb_p(IRQ0_VECTOR, 0x21); /* ICW2: 8259A-1 IR0-7 mapped to 0x20-0x27 */ + outb_p(IRQ0_VECTOR, 0x21); /* ICW2: 8259A-1 IR0-7 mapped to 0x30-0x37 */ outb_p(0x04, 0x21); /* 8259A-1 (the master) has a slave on IR2 */ if (auto_eoi) outb_p(0x03, 0x21); /* master does Auto EOI */ @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ void init_8259A(int auto_eoi) outb_p(0x01, 0x21); /* master expects normal EOI */ outb_p(0x11, 0xA0); /* ICW1: select 8259A-2 init */ - outb_p(IRQ8_VECTOR, 0xA1); /* ICW2: 8259A-2 IR0-7 mapped to 0x28-0x2f */ + outb_p(IRQ8_VECTOR, 0xA1); /* ICW2: 8259A-2 IR0-7 mapped to 0x38-0x3f */ outb_p(0x02, 0xA1); /* 8259A-2 is a slave on master's IR2 */ outb_p(0x01, 0xA1); /* (slave's support for AEOI in flat mode is to be investigated) */ diff --git a/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h b/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h index 2e4b7a5..6153ae5 100644 --- a/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h +++ b/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ #define IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTORFIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR /* - * Vectors 0x20-0x2f are used for ISA interrupts. + * Vectors 0x30-0x3f are used for ISA interrupts. */ #define IRQ0_VECTORFIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR + 0x10 #define IRQ1_VECTORIRQ0_VECTOR + 1 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30
On 3/7/07, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The comment fixes or some variation on them are needed. Please check the patch about comment. YH [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30 FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR is used for IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR, and IRQ0 starting from FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR + 0x10. Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c b/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c index 21d95b7..4894266 100644 --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c +++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ /* * ISA PIC or low IO-APIC triggered (INTA-cycle or APIC) interrupts: - * (these are usually mapped to vectors 0x20-0x2f) + * (these are usually mapped to vectors 0x30-0x3f) */ /* @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ void init_8259A(int auto_eoi) * outb_p - this has to work on a wide range of PC hardware. */ outb_p(0x11, 0x20); /* ICW1: select 8259A-1 init */ - outb_p(IRQ0_VECTOR, 0x21); /* ICW2: 8259A-1 IR0-7 mapped to 0x20-0x27 */ + outb_p(IRQ0_VECTOR, 0x21); /* ICW2: 8259A-1 IR0-7 mapped to 0x30-0x37 */ outb_p(0x04, 0x21); /* 8259A-1 (the master) has a slave on IR2 */ if (auto_eoi) outb_p(0x03, 0x21); /* master does Auto EOI */ @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ void init_8259A(int auto_eoi) outb_p(0x01, 0x21); /* master expects normal EOI */ outb_p(0x11, 0xA0); /* ICW1: select 8259A-2 init */ - outb_p(IRQ8_VECTOR, 0xA1); /* ICW2: 8259A-2 IR0-7 mapped to 0x28-0x2f */ + outb_p(IRQ8_VECTOR, 0xA1); /* ICW2: 8259A-2 IR0-7 mapped to 0x38-0x3f */ outb_p(0x02, 0xA1); /* 8259A-2 is a slave on master's IR2 */ outb_p(0x01, 0xA1); /* (slave's support for AEOI in flat mode is to be investigated) */ diff --git a/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h b/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h index 2e4b7a5..6153ae5 100644 --- a/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h +++ b/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ #define IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR /* - * Vectors 0x20-0x2f are used for ISA interrupts. + * Vectors 0x30-0x3f are used for ISA interrupts. */ #define IRQ0_VECTOR FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR + 0x10 #define IRQ1_VECTOR IRQ0_VECTOR + 1
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30
On 3/7/07, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The comment fixes or some variation on them are needed. Please check the patch about comment. YH [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30 FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR is used for IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR, and IRQ0 starting from FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR + 0x10. Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c b/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c index 21d95b7..4894266 100644 --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c +++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ /* * ISA PIC or low IO-APIC triggered (INTA-cycle or APIC) interrupts: - * (these are usually mapped to vectors 0x20-0x2f) + * (these are usually mapped to vectors 0x30-0x3f) */ /* @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ void init_8259A(int auto_eoi) * outb_p - this has to work on a wide range of PC hardware. */ outb_p(0x11, 0x20); /* ICW1: select 8259A-1 init */ - outb_p(IRQ0_VECTOR, 0x21); /* ICW2: 8259A-1 IR0-7 mapped to 0x20-0x27 */ + outb_p(IRQ0_VECTOR, 0x21); /* ICW2: 8259A-1 IR0-7 mapped to 0x30-0x37 */ outb_p(0x04, 0x21); /* 8259A-1 (the master) has a slave on IR2 */ if (auto_eoi) outb_p(0x03, 0x21); /* master does Auto EOI */ @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ void init_8259A(int auto_eoi) outb_p(0x01, 0x21); /* master expects normal EOI */ outb_p(0x11, 0xA0); /* ICW1: select 8259A-2 init */ - outb_p(IRQ8_VECTOR, 0xA1); /* ICW2: 8259A-2 IR0-7 mapped to 0x28-0x2f */ + outb_p(IRQ8_VECTOR, 0xA1); /* ICW2: 8259A-2 IR0-7 mapped to 0x38-0x3f */ outb_p(0x02, 0xA1); /* 8259A-2 is a slave on master's IR2 */ outb_p(0x01, 0xA1); /* (slave's support for AEOI in flat mode is to be investigated) */ diff --git a/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h b/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h index 2e4b7a5..6153ae5 100644 --- a/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h +++ b/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ #define IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR /* - * Vectors 0x20-0x2f are used for ISA interrupts. + * Vectors 0x30-0x3f are used for ISA interrupts. */ #define IRQ0_VECTOR FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR + 0x10 #define IRQ1_VECTOR IRQ0_VECTOR + 1
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30
Yinghai Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 3/7/07, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The comment fixes or some variation on them are needed. Please check the patch about comment. YH Looks good to me. I've cleaned up the description and placed the patch inline for easier consumption. Everything this patch touches is a comment. So it is as safe as they come. And the patch appears to apply to the Linus's latest tree. --- From: Yinghai Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: x86_64 irq: Fix comments after changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30 Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Signed-off-by: Yinghai Lu [EMAIL PROTECTED] diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c b/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c index 21d95b7..4894266 100644 --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c +++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/i8259.c @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ /* * ISA PIC or low IO-APIC triggered (INTA-cycle or APIC) interrupts: - * (these are usually mapped to vectors 0x20-0x2f) + * (these are usually mapped to vectors 0x30-0x3f) */ /* @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ void init_8259A(int auto_eoi) * outb_p - this has to work on a wide range of PC hardware. */ outb_p(0x11, 0x20); /* ICW1: select 8259A-1 init */ - outb_p(IRQ0_VECTOR, 0x21); /* ICW2: 8259A-1 IR0-7 mapped to 0x20-0x27 */ + outb_p(IRQ0_VECTOR, 0x21); /* ICW2: 8259A-1 IR0-7 mapped to 0x30-0x37 */ outb_p(0x04, 0x21); /* 8259A-1 (the master) has a slave on IR2 */ if (auto_eoi) outb_p(0x03, 0x21); /* master does Auto EOI */ @@ -307,7 +307,7 @@ void init_8259A(int auto_eoi) outb_p(0x01, 0x21); /* master expects normal EOI */ outb_p(0x11, 0xA0); /* ICW1: select 8259A-2 init */ - outb_p(IRQ8_VECTOR, 0xA1); /* ICW2: 8259A-2 IR0-7 mapped to 0x28-0x2f */ + outb_p(IRQ8_VECTOR, 0xA1); /* ICW2: 8259A-2 IR0-7 mapped to 0x38-0x3f */ outb_p(0x02, 0xA1); /* 8259A-2 is a slave on master's IR2 */ outb_p(0x01, 0xA1); /* (slave's support for AEOI in flat mode is to be investigated) */ diff --git a/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h b/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h index 2e4b7a5..6153ae5 100644 --- a/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h +++ b/include/asm-x86_64/hw_irq.h @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ #define IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTORFIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR /* - * Vectors 0x20-0x2f are used for ISA interrupts. + * Vectors 0x30-0x3f are used for ISA interrupts. */ #define IRQ0_VECTORFIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR + 0x10 #define IRQ1_VECTORIRQ0_VECTOR + 1 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30
Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Yinghai Lu wrote: >> >> please check the patch > > Hmm.. It doesn't look *wrong*, but could you please > > - split it up a bit (some of it is 100% obvious, ie the comment fixes) > > - write an explanation for the individually split up patches > > - not use attachments, but just make it inline. It's practically >impossible to reply and quote part of the patch now. > > Eric/Ingo - did you go through and check the patch? This patch will probably work but I'm against it, as is. The comment fixes or some variation on them are needed. But code that assumes we place IRQ0 at a particular place isn't exactly bad but it is brittle. If we are to reduce our array size we can also shave a lot of entries off the top because we mostly use the high end of the vector range for IPI's. So if we were to introduce some set of defines of exactly which vectors we can use and do a thorough job of this I think there may be something reasonable we can do here. Unless this makes the code clearer I don't think there is much point in reducing a fixed sized array from 224 entries to 191 entries, and it has the potential to make this much less pleasant if we goof up elsewhere. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30
Linus Torvalds [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Yinghai Lu wrote: please check the patch Hmm.. It doesn't look *wrong*, but could you please - split it up a bit (some of it is 100% obvious, ie the comment fixes) - write an explanation for the individually split up patches - not use attachments, but just make it inline. It's practically impossible to reply and quote part of the patch now. Eric/Ingo - did you go through and check the patch? This patch will probably work but I'm against it, as is. The comment fixes or some variation on them are needed. But code that assumes we place IRQ0 at a particular place isn't exactly bad but it is brittle. If we are to reduce our array size we can also shave a lot of entries off the top because we mostly use the high end of the vector range for IPI's. So if we were to introduce some set of defines of exactly which vectors we can use and do a thorough job of this I think there may be something reasonable we can do here. Unless this makes the code clearer I don't think there is much point in reducing a fixed sized array from 224 entries to 191 entries, and it has the potential to make this much less pleasant if we goof up elsewhere. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > please check the patch Hmm.. It doesn't look *wrong*, but could you please - split it up a bit (some of it is 100% obvious, ie the comment fixes) - write an explanation for the individually split up patches - not use attachments, but just make it inline. It's practically impossible to reply and quote part of the patch now. Eric/Ingo - did you go through and check the patch? Thanks, Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] x86_64 irq: keep consistent for changing IRQ0_VECTOR from 0x20 to 0x30
On Mon, 5 Mar 2007, Yinghai Lu wrote: please check the patch Hmm.. It doesn't look *wrong*, but could you please - split it up a bit (some of it is 100% obvious, ie the comment fixes) - write an explanation for the individually split up patches - not use attachments, but just make it inline. It's practically impossible to reply and quote part of the patch now. Eric/Ingo - did you go through and check the patch? Thanks, Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
