On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:06:54PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2022, at 7:22 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > The NO_IRQ thing is mainly actually defined by a few drivers that just > > never got converted to the proper world order, and even then you can > > see the confusion (ie some drivers use "-1", others use "0", and yet > > others use "((unsigned int)(-1)". > > The last time I looked at removing it for arch/arm/, one problem was > that there were a number of platforms using IRQ 0 as a valid number. > We have converted most of them in the meantime, leaving now only > mach-rpc and mach-footbridge. For the other platforms, we just > renumbered all interrupts to add one, but footbridge apparently > relies on hardcoded ISA interrupts in device drivers. For rpc, > it looks like IRQ 0 (printer) already wouldn't work, and it > looks like there was never a driver referencing it either. Do these two boxes even have pci? > I see that openrisc and parisc also still define NO_IRQ to -1, but at > least openrisc already relies on 0 being the invalid IRQ (from > CONFIG_IRQ_DOMAIN), probably parisc as well. > > Arnd
