[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0802101856460.4417@axis700.grange>
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:59:39 +0100 (CET)
From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@...gutronix.de>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, i2c@...sensors.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Define a NO_GPIO macro to compare against and to use as
an invalid GPIO
David, you convinced me:-) I'll redo the patch. Just one comment:
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, David Brownell wrote:
> On Saturday 09 February 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
>
> > And when those platforms share drivers, problems
> > arise. And the simple and efficient NO_IRQ notion, that would fis those
> > problems nicely, cannot seem to establish itself.
>
> Inertia is one of the problems there ... plus, the only
> obvious advantage of "#define NO_IRQ 0" is that it makes
> it easier to be lazy about initialization.
>
> Plus, changing platforms to use that convention means they
> mostly need to adopt an *unnatural* step of mapping from the
> hardware IRQ numbers (which often start at zero, as they do
> on one system I just ssh'd into) to some "logical" ID.
> Even if you believe that's worthwhile, it's work; and it
> could easily break something.
NO_IRQ doesn't have to be 0. Platforms, where 0 is a valid number can use
-1, or 256, or whatever they want:-)
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists