Re: m68knommu: duplicate _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RISCTIMER] assignment in init_IRQ()

[Greg Ungerer <gerg@snapgear.com>]

Hi Roel,

On 02/11/2010 12:10 AM, Roel Kluin wrote:
> Looking at arch/m68knommu/platform/68360/ints.c I noted two things that
> stood out:
>
> 1) on line 110:
>
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RISCTIMER]   = inthandler;  /* reserved */
>
> and 114:
>
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RISCTIMER]   = inthandler;  /* timer table */
>
> The same definitions are used, and in the first case the comment and
> definition do not correspond.

Yes, that does look odd. I am not intimately familiar with the 68360,
but looking at the underlying vector numbers I would say that the
entry with the "reserved" comment is superfluous, and should be removed.

(That code has been that way as far back as I could see,
certainly into 2.4 kernels).


> 2) while all other definitions are used like this:
>
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_DEF2]   = inthandler;
> ...
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_DEF1]   = inthandler;
>
> This is not true for CPMVEC_RESERVED:
>
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RESERVED1]   = inthandler;   /* reserved */
> ...
> _ramvec[vba+CPMVEC_RESERVED2]   = inthandler;  /* reserved */
>
> Is this a bug?

I am not sure I follow. Is it the ascending/descending numerical
ordering that you are worried about?

I don't know why the original author ordered the assignments
in the opposite order of the definitions, but I don't see it
making any difference here. So I don't see a bug.

Regards
Greg


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Ungerer  --  Principal Engineer        EMAIL:     gerg@snapgear.com
SnapGear Group, McAfee                      PHONE:       +61 7 3435 2888
8 Gardner Close,                            FAX:         +61 7 3891 3630
Milton, QLD, 4064, Australia                WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com