On Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 3 Oct 2010, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > > > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > >> That would make things much cleaner and in fact move one large step > > >> toward being able to make powerpc virq scheme generic, which seems to be > > >> a good idea from what I've heard :-) > > > > > > Yep. > > > > I'm not certain about making the ppc virq scheme generic. Maybe it is > > just my distorted impression but I have the understanding that ppc irq > > numbers mean nothing and are totally unstable whereas on x86 irq numbers > > in general are stable (across kernel upgrades and changes in device > > probe order) and the irq number has a useful hardware meaning. Which > > means you don't have to go through several layers of translation tables > > to figure out which hardware pin you are talking about. > > Nobody is forced to use it, but we have already several instances of > virq mapping implementations in arch/*. Having a generic > infrastructure for this makes a ton of sense. Forgot to say: With MSI and dynamic allocated irqs the stable numbers are completely meaningless. So where is the point ? Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
