[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111206061321.GH9192@game.jcrosoft.org>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 07:13:21 +0100
From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@...hat.com>, linux-ide@...r.kernel.org,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>,
linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ata: Don't use NO_IRQ in pata_of_platform driver
On 18:45 Mon 05 Dec , Alan Cox wrote:
> > But as you illustrated, there is a large number of drivers that already
> > assume no IRQ is < 0, even if they don't use any IRQ #0 themselves.
> > That is a much bigger problem to fix.
>
> And a much larger number assuming the reverse is true which are hiding
> potential bugs on ARM.
>
> Looking at the serial stuff the best checks appear to be looking at
> "irq", "-1" and NO_IRQ.
>
> For migration stuff that's doing broken things like
>
> if (irq < 0)
>
> can be changed to
>
> if (irq <= 0)
>
> and that can be done before NO_IRQ itself is nailed on ARM and PA-RISC.
can we sinply introduce a macro irq_is_valid
and make it chip dependant as gpio_is_valid
and then move away from irq 0 valid
so we do not need to brake anthing first and then easly convert them
Best Regards,
J.
--
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