|To:||"Maciej W. Rozycki" <email@example.com>|
|Subject:||Re: [PATCH] Import updates from i386's i8259.c|
|From:||Sergei Shtylyov <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Date:||Wed, 06 Dec 2006 18:12:44 +0300|
|Cc:||Ingo Molnar <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, Ralf Baechle <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org|
|Organization:||MontaVista Software Inc.|
|References:||<email@example.com> <20061206015818.GB27985@linux-mips.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4576C2E9.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.email@example.com> <4576CB64.firstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.LNX.4.64N.email@example.com>|
|User-agent:||Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803|
Hello. Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
And with the "IO-APIC-edge" and "IO-APIC-level" alternatives back when the concept of IRQ controllers was introduced, "XT-PIC" rather than "8259A" sounded quite right.
I don't follow you here.
These were the three first names of interrupt controllers introduced back in 2.1 and the names chosen looked consistent.
I'd say they *only* looked consistent then. :-)In fact, i8259.c is driving two coupled together 8259 chips, so using the word "XT" in this context was absolutely wrong.
As for the I/O APIC, I think i82903AA was "the reference design" for it...
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [PATCH] Import updates from i386's i8259.c, Maciej W. Rozycki|
|Next by Date:||Re: [PATCH] Import updates from i386's i8259.c, Maciej W. Rozycki|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] Import updates from i386's i8259.c, Maciej W. Rozycki|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [PATCH] Import updates from i386's i8259.c, Maciej W. Rozycki|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|