I notice that arch/v850/kernel/irq.c has been updated with a
"show_interrupts" function; in this function it contains the following
bit of code:
if (i == 0) {
seq_puts(p, " ");
for (i=0; i < 1 /*smp_num_cpus*/; i++)
seq_printf(p, "CPU%d ", i);
seq_putc(p, '\n');
}
if (i < NR_IRQS) {
... show interrupt i ...
} else if (i == NR_IRQS)
seq_printf(p, "ERR: %10lu\n", irq_err_count);
where "i" is iterated (by procfs) from 0...NR_IRQS.
On the v850, irq 0 is a real interrupt, so this doesn't really work
properly -- it doesn't display an entry for irq 0.
Is it now illegal for irq 0 to be a real interrupt (was it illegal before)?
Or is the procfs code just bogus?
Thanks,
-miles
--
Occam's razor split hairs so well, I bought the whole argument!
On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 20:54 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> I notice that arch/v850/kernel/irq.c has been updated with a
> "show_interrupts" function; in this function it contains the following
> bit of code:
>
>
> if (i == 0) {
> seq_puts(p, " ");
> for (i=0; i < 1 /*smp_num_cpus*/; i++)
> seq_printf(p, "CPU%d ", i);
> seq_putc(p, '\n');
> }
>
> if (i < NR_IRQS) {
> ... show interrupt i ...
> } else if (i == NR_IRQS)
> seq_printf(p, "ERR: %10lu\n", irq_err_count);
>
> where "i" is iterated (by procfs) from 0...NR_IRQS.
>
> On the v850, irq 0 is a real interrupt, so this doesn't really work
> properly -- it doesn't display an entry for irq 0.
What makes you say that? The i==0 code seems to fall through and
therefore should print IRQ0 just fine.
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell
Current Noise: Vader - The Final Massacre
Ignore previous fortune.
Ian Campbell <[email protected]> writes:
>> On the v850, irq 0 is a real interrupt, so this doesn't really work
>> properly -- it doesn't display an entry for irq 0.
>
> What makes you say that? The i==0 code seems to fall through and
> therefore should print IRQ0 just fine.
Gee you're right... silly me. :-/
Thanks,
-miles
--
Run away! Run away!