[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa686aa40912091000h16942fe9m239997ca3f2d9e4a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:00:19 -0700
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mm-commits@...r.kernel.org,
daniel@...aq.de, dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net,
s.hauer@...gutronix.de, spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: + spi-imx-correct-check-for-platform_get_irq-failing.patch added
to -mm tree
2009/12/9 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 04:32:41PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 08:08:19AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> > (resend because I forgot to cc the mailing list)
>> >
>> > 2009/12/9 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>:
>> > > Hello Grant,
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 05:38:57PM -0700, Grant Likely wrote:
>> > >> > diff -puN drivers/spi/spi_imx.c~spi-imx-correct-check-for-platform_get_irq-failing drivers/spi/spi_imx.c
>> > >> > --- a/drivers/spi/spi_imx.c~spi-imx-correct-check-for-platform_get_irq-failing
>> > >> > +++ a/drivers/spi/spi_imx.c
>> > >> > @@ -554,7 +554,7 @@ static int __init spi_imx_probe(struct p
>> > >> > }
>> > >> >
>> > >> > spi_imx->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> > >> > - if (!spi_imx->irq) {
>> > >> > + if (spi_imx->irq < 0) {
>> > >>
>> > >> This changes the old behaviour. Is that what you intended? '<= 0' perhaps?
>> > > Yes, the old check was wrong. What if the irq to use is 0? I thought
>> > > the commit log to be understandable. platform_get_irq returns -ENXIO on
>> > > error and an irq number on success. So 0 has to be interpreted as valid
>> > > irq, not an error.
>> >
>> > 0 is not a valid IRQ
>> Hmm, on my x86 I have:
>>
>> $ grep '\<0:' /proc/interrupts
>> 0: 24330 IO-APIC-edge timer
>>
>> arm/davinci starts at 0, too. As does arm/ns9xxx. arm/pxa seems to
>> start at 1. realview starts at 1, too. So four out of five make are
>> wrong? Seems like a big area for cleanup.
> I've read a bit and I think the best for a driver writer (i.e. the role
> I have when changing drivers/spi/spi_imx.c) is to accept what
> platform_get_irq returns to me. If the platform specified
>
> struct resource mydevicesresources[] = {
> ...
> {
> .start = 0,
> .end = 0,
> .flags = IORESOURCE_IRQ,
> },
> ...
> };
>
> then the best thing to do is to take irq0, isn't it. So as
> platform_get_irq is implemented as
>
> int platform_get_irq(struct platform_device *dev, unsigned int num)
> {
> struct resource *r = platform_get_resource(dev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, num);
>
> return r ? r->start : -ENXIO;
> }
>
> testing for <0 seems right to me.
Regardless. I won't accept that change for a theoretical use case.
In the general case I'll maintain the pattern that irq 0 is invalid
unless it is the only way to get around a real problem.
g.
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
--
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