Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, May 5, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What NO_IRQ problem do you mean? There is > > #define NO_IRQ (-1) > > in arch/parisc/include/asm/irq.h. > > That's the one he means. > > Switching it to zero and testing that things still work would be > appreciated. > > Much code already knows that NO_IRQ is supposed to be zero, and > there's tons of drivers that just do the (correct!) "if (!dev->irq)" > kind of thing. > > Any architecture that has a non-zero NO_IRQ is basically broken. > Always has been. The stuff in drivers/parisc/gsc.c doesn't look as if it would survive that change. Eike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
