From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261301AbVGBWH6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jul 2005 18:07:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261310AbVGBWH4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jul 2005 18:07:56 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:46317 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261301AbVGBWBx (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Jul 2005 18:01:53 -0400 Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 15:01:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: David Woodhouse cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , Len Brown , Natalie Protasevich Subject: Re: If ACPI doesn't find an irq listed, don't accept 0 as a valid PCI irq. In-Reply-To: <1120340186.9275.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <200507021908.j62J8m4D009707@hera.kernel.org> <1120340186.9275.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 2 Jul 2005, David Woodhouse wrote: > > Zero _is_ a valid IRQ number. Not for a "legacy irq" it ain't. If the ACPI layer itself decides to use IRQ0, then that's fine, and that path hasn't changed at all. However, if ACPI doesn't find any irq, and ends up just using whatever irq the device had for some legacy reason, then irq 0 just means "nobody set an irq". Besides, we'll actually be returning 0 _anyway_. The only thing my patch fixes (and it _is_ a fix) is that we won't be stupidly thinking that we actually have a valid irq, and that we should turn it level-sensitive. Linus