[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <874m5lrafq.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 14:47:37 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: dougthompson@...ssion.com, mchehab@...nel.org,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, arnd@...db.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/edac: NO_IRQ removal from powerpc-only drivers
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:57:08PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> We'd like to eventually remove NO_IRQ on powerpc, so remove usages of it
>> from powerpc-only drivers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
>> ---
>> drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c | 6 +++---
>> drivers/edac/mv64x60_edac.c | 8 ++++----
>> drivers/edac/ppc4xx_edac.c | 6 +++---
>> 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
>> index ca63d0da8889..e12b8e166a53 100644
>> --- a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
>> +++ b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c
>> @@ -267,7 +267,7 @@ static int mpc85xx_pci_err_probe(struct platform_device *op)
>>
>> pdata = pci->pvt_info;
>> pdata->name = "mpc85xx_pci_err";
>> - pdata->irq = NO_IRQ;
>> + pdata->irq = 0;
>>
>> plat_data = op->dev.platform_data;
>> if (!plat_data) {
>
> So all of those pdata structs come from kzalloc() so you don't really
> have to assign to 0 - simply kill the line.
OK.
>> @@ -1058,7 +1058,7 @@ static int mpc85xx_mc_err_probe(struct platform_device *op)
>>
>> pdata = mci->pvt_info;
>> pdata->name = "mpc85xx_mc_err";
>> - pdata->irq = NO_IRQ;
>> + pdata->irq = 0;
>> mci->pdev = &op->dev;
>> pdata->edac_idx = edac_mc_idx++;
>> dev_set_drvdata(mci->pdev, mci);
>
> That part went into drivers/edac/fsl_ddr_edac.c which is only the
> freescale memory controller being shared between ARM and PPC, see
>
> http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/bp/bp.git/log/?h=for-next
>
> But that shouldn't change the issue wrt ->irq as now it is implicitly 0.
Ah OK.
NO_IRQ is -1 on ARM (or at least it can be?), see arch/arm/include/asm/irq.h.
So I'll leave that one alone for now.
> IOW, you can drop this hunk.
>
> Please send v2 against the above branch or linux-next.
OK will do.
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists