RE: [ACPI] [PATCH] 4 of 6 introduce acpi_global_irq_to_irq()

Nakajima, Jun
2004-03-10T00:00:19Z

I agree with David. And GSI is more consistent with the ACPI spec, and
you don't need to explain what it is.

Jun
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Mosberger [mailto:davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:45 PM
>To: Bjorn Helgaas
>Cc: acpi-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org; Andi
>Kleen; Nakajima, Jun; Brown, Len
>Subject: Re: [ACPI] [PATCH] 4 of 6 introduce acpi_global_irq_to_irq()
>
>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 16:26:31 -0700, Bjorn Helgaas
><bjorn.helgaas@hp.com> said:
>
> Bjorn> i386, x86_64, ia64, ACPI: Introduce acpi_global_irq_to_irq()
> Bjorn> Rename acpi_irq_to_vector() to acpi_global_irq_to_irq().
> Bjorn> This function takes an ACPI global IRQ (often called a
> Bjorn> "global system interrupt", but "global_irq" seems to be
> Bjorn> commonly used in Linux), and converts it to a Linux IRQ.
>
> Bjorn> This removes IA64 and PCI_USE_VECTOR #ifdefs from ACPI.
>
>The ia64-specific changes have my blessing.
>
>However, I'd _much_ prefer "gsi" in lieu of "global_irq". It's much
>easier to think of the former as a numbering-scheme separate from the
>Linux irq numbers. Justs my 2 cents...
>
> --david