On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 09:57:33AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Sun, 2010-10-03 at 21:16 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > And I really do not see a point to have a truly random 64bit number > > space for interrupts. Especially the dynamically allocated interrupts > > (MSI & co) do not care about the number space at all. They care about > > getting a unique number, nothing else. > > Actually, some implementations care about the actual number... but then, > at least on powerpc, those are hidden behind the virq translation so we > really don't care :-) In fact, if it wasn't for all the embedded platforms where some hard coded irq number is encoded into the static device tables (platform_device et al.) I'd argue that the irq number is completely meaningless outside of the core irq code, and from a device driver point of view it is just an opaque cookie. Also from the userspace point of view, the attachment to a particular irq controller instance is far more interesting than the specific irq number. g. -- 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
