From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: What is the correct way to indicate an unassigned PCI resource
	?
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 15:43:12 +1100
Message-ID: <1165293792.29784.42.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20061130165202.GA23205@aepfle.de>
	 <20061204123854.GA28159@aepfle.de>
	 <FF278F8E-1F65-488D-8821-86A1D9F3B5DA@kernel.crashing.org>
	 <4574197A.2020204@ru.mvista.com>
	 <4FC2EBCF-C927-435A-9BE3-E4403AFC042D@kernel.crashing.org>
	 <45741DDE.4080509@ru.mvista.com>
	 <20061204132124.4f7c50a9@localhost.localdomain>
	 <45742253.1000807@ru.mvista.com>
	 <20061204142201.68d9621f@localhost.localdomain>
	 <457431FE.6040702@ru.mvista.com>
	 <20061204144411.246f3700@localhost.localdomain>
	 <45744159.8040301@ru.mvista.com> <457444E3.7030706@ru.mvista.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.60.0612042146040.6042@poirot.grange>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:57136 "EHLO gate.crashing.org"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S968347AbWLEEnf (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-ide@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 4 Dec 2006 23:43:35 -0500
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0612042146040.6042@poirot.grange>
Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@gmx.de>
Cc: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com>, Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, greg@kroah.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz, Alan <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>

On Mon, 2006-12-04 at 21:53 +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> 
> > >>>   When Linus remaps IRQ0 on x86, I'll follow that code as a testament. Until 
> > >>>this happens, I consider is just an opinion. Forcing every arch but x86 to 
> > >>>remap IRQ0 is an example of the double standards.
> 
> Can I have a link to that specific answer from Linus, please? Somehow I 
> missed it.

That debate is pointless. arch/powerpc now always remaps and 0 is always
illegal as a logical IRQ number, while it's perfectly legal as a HW
number on any PIC, so there is no more problem. Other archs might
probably want to do a similar remapping anyway as it makes loads of
things easier when you have multiple PICs and/or dynamically assigned
numbers.

Ben.