On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 02:32:45PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:24:35AM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Anton Vorontsov > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Assume that GPIO 8 does not translate to any IRQ, but IRQ 8 is still > >> > valid virq b/c it is mapped for another IRQ controller (particularly > >> > lots of kernel code assumes that IRQ 8 is 8259 PIC's CMOS interrupt, > >> > the PIC and IRQ8 is widely used on PowerPC). > >> > >> Set the base in the GPIO struct such that this won't happen. You can > >> set the base greater than MAX_IRQ. > > > > And then you'll conflict with some other subsystem that decides to engage > > in the same shenanigans. > > That comment was target at GPIO's that don't support interrupts. Give > those GPIO numbers greater than MAX_IRQ in case someone tries to use > them with the IRQ subsystem. Then they'll get errors.
Or we can do the right thing, without messing all other gpio controllers, i.e. implementing MAX_IRQ hacks. Right? I still don't see any problems with .to_irq callback, can you point out any? -- Anton Vorontsov email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2 _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
