> When Linus remaps IRQ0 on x86, I'll follow that code as a testament. Until > this happens, I consider is just an opinion. Forcing every arch but x86 to > remap IRQ0 is an example of the double standards. Yawn.. x86 does not expose IRQ 0 outside of arch specific code. > > The checks need pushing upwards and removing from their current place - > > the pci layer should check the resource length, the isa pnp should I > > believe check for zero address etc. > > So, it's OK to remove the base *address* check in ide_hwif_confiure() > altogether? IFF you move all the other checks, verify their correctness and then get them tested for a while yes > > libata makes a similar assumption in ata_resources_present() as someone > > (GregKH ???) needs to define what the proper way to encode "resource not > > allocated" into the PCI resources should be. > > > If someone on the PCI list (cc'd) or Greg can give a definitive answer then we can go fix the > > offenders now. > > Well, I thought that was IORESOURCE_UNSET... It seems to depend which line of code you ask - hence the question 8( - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
