On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 22:51 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
quoted text
> > > 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.

So for these, the abstraction transformation is the identity ... meaning
they behave as they always have.

James


--
unsubscribe notice
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/