Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754852AbYHRWOe (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:14:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752928AbYHRWO0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:14:26 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:39696 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752780AbYHRWOZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:14:25 -0400 Message-ID: <48A9F407.2080901@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:13:27 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: James Bottomley , "Eric W. Biederman" , Yinghai Lu , Jesse Barnes , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Vasquez Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci: change msi-x vector to 32bit References: <200808160326.m7G3QR1G012726@terminus.zytor.com> <86802c440808152342m772d5eabs59a9c93ffe4cf557@mail.gmail.com> <1218898238.3940.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080816163945.74d487e9@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <1218903209.3940.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <86802c440808161156rf48f23ai9d77ce3cab36f02a@mail.gmail.com> <1218918341.3940.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> <86802c440808161334q75a7d019ofade0b6cabf3f74d@mail.gmail.com> <1218919547.3940.57.camel@localhost.localdomain> <86802c440808161517y1eaa5a4eo817b8a1bf75945be@mail.gmail.com> <1218928162.3940.62.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1219093158.3261.70.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1219097061.3261.76.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080818225105.42784da0@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20080818225105.42784da0@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1365 Lines: 31 Alan Cox wrote: >>> I completely agree that irq number 99.9% of the time should be a completely >>> abstract token. >> Sure, although one nice reason for doing the abstraction first is that >> it stops people imposing fragile numbering schemes on irq ... > > On a lot of embedded devices IRQ numbers are not abstract and not > fragile. I'm all for abstracting out interrupts nicely but it isn't just > the legacy PC cases to consider - a lot of embedded is at least as > defined, rigid and meaningfully numbered as ISA. > Note that James said: > Sure, but you have 16 (or whatever) legacy interrupts. You still call > them 1-16 (or ISA-1 through ISA-16). By the time we reach this stage, > we're essentially doing string table lookups for the interrupts, so > there's no need to pre-allocate them (except as a possible arch > implementation detail). I think the point is that if we're going to have a meaningful name, it should be a string, so we can impose whatever naming scheme makes sense for the platform. Even on embedded platforms it may mean that the flat number scheme isn't what makes sense. -hpa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/