> We could have done it for interrupts too. A "struct irqnum" that has a bit > that specifies "valid". That would work. But it tends to be painful, so it > really has to give you something more than "zero is disabled". > > It's just not worth it. > > And it's why I decreed, that the ONLY SANE THING is to just let people do > the obvious thing: > > if (!dev->irq) > return -ENODEV; > > you don't have to know ANYTHING, and that code just works, and just looks > obvious. And you know what? If it causes a bit of pain for some platform > maintainer, I don't care one whit. Because it's obviously much better than > the alternatives.
I'd rather have dev->irq be a struct interrupt * :-) The NULL check would then make more sense and we completely remove "numbers" from drivers, they have to obtain their struct interrupt via some interrupt mapping code.... Ben. - 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/
