Wrong use of IRQ-handling in ftape?

Hans Georg Zezschwitz (redjack@science-products.com)
Fri, 15 Mar 1996 23:06:53 +0100 (MET)


Hello,

I noticed the change in request_irq and free_irq together with the
introduction of shared interrupts.

As writing a section of the Kernel Korner in Linux Journal, I wondered
what the new "device id" meant.

As Shared Interrupts are a concept supported by PCI, which introduces
device ids as well, I saw those to concepts together and believed
that the device id should is only useful when SA_SHIRQ is set (when
calling request_irq). Howether, when looking at patch-1.3.74.gz, I
noticed that the calls to "request_irq" and "free_irq" don't support
shared irqs, but anyway set the device id. This should not be
harmful, but who understood the new irq-concept wrong, me or the
"patcher"?

If I should be wrong, I'd be glad to get to know more about the new
dev_id-entry, otherwise I suggest free_irq and request_irq should
be changed again in ftape.c

Bye,

Georg Zezschwitz