Re: CVS Update@oss.sgi.com: linux

[Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>]

"Maciej W. Rozycki" wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> 
> > >  Hmm, the assumption might be justifiable for the i386 only?  Shouldn't
> > > i8259.c be fixed instead?
> >
> > These are the ISA interrupts; many drivers make assumptions about the
> > interrupts numbers, so we can't really change the numbers anyway.  For
> > any non-ISA interrupt it's number can be choosen freely.
> 
>  I don't think such assumptions are sane even for the i386 -- an I/O APIC
> system is free to route ISA interrupts to whichever I/O APIC inputs are
> available, not necessarily the low 16.  The Intel MP Spec explicitly
> allows such a setup -- ISA interrupts are only tied in default
> configurations, which are rarely used (probably not at all these days).
> 
>  Anyway, only the drivers that read an IRQ number from jumpers or Flash
> memory need to be checked, and these are a minority (3Com Ethernet cards
> and possibly very few others).  These that do probing (with probe_irq) or
> simply take the number from an option will work automatically.
> 
>  While I agree for 2.4 it might be not the best idea to do such changes,
> for 2.5 it's worth considering, isn't it?
> 

This patch is from me.  It merely reflects a change of the irq base mapping
from 0x20 to 0x0.  I think someone did this change for Malta board.

A better solution is to have init_i8259_irqs() take an argument that is the
base IRQ number, like many other irq controller code do.  This way it is a
board level decision as what block of IRQs i8259 should use.

Jun