From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:52:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:30048 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20038486AbWLFNwH (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:52:07 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.248] (unknown [10.150.0.9]) by imap.sh.mvista.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E28F3EC9; Wed, 6 Dec 2006 05:52:02 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4576CB64.2060705@ru.mvista.com> Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:53:40 +0300 From: Sergei Shtylyov Organization: MontaVista Software Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Ingo Molnar , anemo@mba.sphere.ne.jp, Ralf Baechle , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Import updates from i386's i8259.c References: <20061206.103923.71086192.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <20061206015818.GB27985@linux-mips.org> <20061206.115602.63741871.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <20061206.133836.89067271.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <4576C2E9.4060900@ru.mvista.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 13370 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Hello. Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: >>>+static struct irq_chip i8259A_chip = { >>>+ .name = "XT-PIC", >>>+ .mask = disable_8259A_irq, >>>+ .unmask = enable_8259A_irq, >>>+ .mask_ack = mask_and_ack_8259A, >>> }; >> I wonder whose idea was to call this device XT-PIC. XT never had dual 8259A >>PICs and so was capable of handling only 8 IRQs. Dual 8259A was first used in >>the AT class machines... > Ask Ingo, perhaps... ;-) Ask and be ignored. :-) > I think he was perfectly right, though -- this > is a pair of PC/XT-class PICs. Coupled as only in PC/AT-class machines. So, this XT qualification is actually meaningless. It's 8259A, that's all. > And with the "IO-APIC-edge" and > "IO-APIC-level" alternatives back when the concept of IRQ controllers was > introduced, "XT-PIC" rather than "8259A" sounded quite right. I don't follow you here. > Maciej WBR, Sergei