Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 May 2003 09:16:06 +0100 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: IRQ_NONE definition in NCR5380 driver... |
| |
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 12:27:25AM +0100, Dave Airlie wrote: > Currently the NCR5380.h defines IRQ_NONE to be 255, is there any special > reason for this? why not use UINT32_MAX-1?.. > > The VAX actually has got more than 255 interrupt handlers which we've > mapped to IRQs, and it happens the external SCSI interface is at 255, so > this makes it a bit sick... > > I've redefined it in our tree to 65535 but I see no reason not to go to > the above... any objections?
Only that ARM already has a NO_IRQ macro fairly well established for this thing, which should probably be propagated to the other architectures. Could we call it NO_IRQ instead?
I seem to remember that in the dim and distant past, several drivers used to store IRQ numbers in byte-sized objects, so this would need to be fixed before making NO_IRQ > 255.
-- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |