From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:04:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:04:25 -0500 Received: from colorfullife.com ([216.156.138.34]:19216 "EHLO colorfullife.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 2 Feb 2001 11:04:11 -0500 Message-ID: <3A7ADA84.6892DE07@colorfullife.com> Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:04:20 +0100 From: Manfred X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.1-pre11 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: mingo@redhat.com, "Maciej W. Rozycki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: mpparse.c question Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org I've started cleaning up mpparse.c/ioapic.c for the addition of acpi support, but I got stuck in the mess of global variables. What's the purpose of of the irq_2_pin in io_apic.c? I assume that I overlook something, but afaics the code allows one physical interrupt source (e.g. INTA from device 9 on pci bus 0) to arrive at multiple ioapic pins. Can that happen, is that important? Silly question: Why can't we ignore all but the first pin? If we don't enable the additional pins, we don't have to disable them during disable_irq(). disable_irq() and enable_irq() seem to be the only users of irq_2_pin. Btw, is is correct that the isa irq's are always connected to the first io apic? find_isa_irq_pin() doesn't handle that, and the caller just access io apic 0. -- Manfred - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/