From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxsh-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] libata: Support PIO polling-only hosts.
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2007 15:18:37 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071107151837.3cbe3a67@the-village.bc.nu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20071107132702.GA27488@linux-sh.org>
> > Zero is "no IRQ", please use that for polling not "< 0"
> >
> However, platform_get_irq() will happily return IRQ#0, and it's a valid
> vector on plenty of machines. NO_IRQ is also < 0 on at least FR-V, ARM,
> blackin, PA-RISC, some PowerPC, and even IDE.
No it is not. The platform IRQ code is responsible for ensuring that 0 is
not a real IRQ and doing any neccessary remapping.
Large parts of the kernel assume that
- IRQ 0 is "no IRQ assigned" (serial, pci, ide etc )
- IRQ is *unsigned*
> We do have some devices that are physically on IRQ#0 that otherwise work
> fine, they aren't ATA devices mind you, but to claim that IRQ#0 isn't a
> valid vector is not in line with what hardware actually does, whether
> it's a good idea or not. In our case the IRQ vector maps to an exception
> offset, which we bump down to zero. We could force an off-by-1 there so
> that the math that indexes IRQ#0 is bumped up one, but that entails
> fixing up every one of our IRQ numbers for no obvious gain.
>
> I don't really see any value in purposely crippling the range of
> allowable vectors for these machines. Though I don't mind switching to a
> NO_IRQ comparison instead of the < 0 case, so both can be handled.
NO_IRQ is an obsolete old-IDE hack.
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.2/2197.html
http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0511.2/1789.html
Alan
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-07 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-07 8:10 Paul Mundt
2007-11-07 8:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] libata: pata_platform: Support polling-mode configuration Paul Mundt
2007-11-07 13:10 ` Alan Cox
2007-11-07 13:09 ` [PATCH 1/2] libata: Support PIO polling-only hosts Alan Cox
2007-11-07 13:27 ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-07 14:09 ` Mark Lord
2007-11-07 14:53 ` Paul Mundt
2007-11-07 15:28 ` Alan Cox
2007-11-07 15:18 ` Alan Cox [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20071107151837.3cbe3a67@the-village.bc.nu \
--to=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=lethal@linux-sh.org \
--cc=linux-ide@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxsh-dev@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®