David, you convinced me:-) I'll redo the patch. Just one comment: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 09 February 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > And when those platforms share drivers, problems > > arise. And the simple and efficient NO_IRQ notion, that would fis those > > problems nicely, cannot seem to establish itself. > > Inertia is one of the problems there ... plus, the only > obvious advantage of "#define NO_IRQ 0" is that it makes > it easier to be lazy about initialization. > > Plus, changing platforms to use that convention means they > mostly need to adopt an *unnatural* step of mapping from the > hardware IRQ numbers (which often start at zero, as they do > on one system I just ssh'd into) to some "logical" ID. > Even if you believe that's worthwhile, it's work; and it > could easily break something. NO_IRQ doesn't have to be 0. Platforms, where 0 is a valid number can use -1, or 256, or whatever they want:-) Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski -- 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/
