From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from p508B7611.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.139.118.17]:46879 "EHLO mail.linux-mips.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268207AbUJSLnJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:43:09 -0400 Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:42:53 +0200 From: Ralf Baechle Subject: Re: All archs: NO_IRQ definition Message-ID: <20041019114253.GC28236@linux-mips.org> References: <1098169077.11400.51.camel@gaston> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1098169077.11400.51.camel@gaston> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Linux Arch list List-ID: On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:57:57PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > I need to fix a few wrong cases where driver assume that irq = 0 means > no interrupt. This is wrong, some arch have pefectly valid IRQ 0. We > started defining NO_IRQ a while ago for that reason, but it seems lot > of archs didn't catch up. I plan to collect a patch fixing them all but > you guys will have to tell me what value to use for NO_IRQ (0 ? -1 ?). > > Currently, only ppc64, arm and mips add it, and I know what to do for > ppc, that leaves me with request for the proper value to use for those > archs: I guess your grep must have picked up SGI_VINO_IRQ by accident - MIPS doesn't define NO_IRQ. 0 is used as a normal interrupt number on MIPS, so -1 is the prefered value for NO_IRQ. Ralf