Re: pirq checking

[ron minnich]

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
> ron minnich  [040603 17:23]:
> > > the current pirq code defines intel_irq_routing_table as const, thus
> > > making it potentially readonly.
> >
> > should be const due to execute-in-place issues.
>
> What's the benefit in this case? we have dram long before this code is
> run, and the table is really small. Should it be copied to ram
> completely maybe?

the only reason is that in the execute in place case you can't write to 
it. Leaving it as const will catch bugs involving people writing to it. 
That's all.
> Nope, parts of that is my fault. But I still think it is a good idea to
> go towards dynamic table creation.

yes. we're just not there.

ron