On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:12:07AM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
quoted
quoted
+ if (!uioinfo->irq)
+ uioinfo->irq = UIO_IRQ_NONE;
Please don't do this. It's inconsistent if all other UIO drivers require
people to use UIO_IRQ_NONE and you also allow zero. UIO_IRQ_NONE was
introduced because 0 may be a legal interrupt number on some platforms.
Zero is not a valid IRQ number in the kernel (except in arch specific
depths). IRQ numbers are also *unsigned* so -1 isn't a safe definition.
The above uioinfo->irq is a signed long.
Zero means no IRQ. If any old UIO code is assuming otherwise it wants
fixing.
It doesn't. It won't complain about IRQ 0 and will pass it on to
request_irq, which will probably fail if it is as you say.
I did it that way because I saw IRQ 0 in /proc/interrupts on every PC...
It is the job of the platform to map a physical IRQ 0 to some other
representation if it exists outside of arch specific code.
Funny.
This was
decided some years ago and a large part of the kernel simply doesn't
support any notion of a real IRQ 0.
Can you tell me the reason for that decision or point me to some ml archive?
Thanks,
Hans
Alan