[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YiJfDRrkzfre/Iqb@kroah.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2022 19:48:45 +0100
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Zhiyong Tao <zhiyong.tao@...iatek.com>,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] serial: 8520_mtk: Prepare for
platform_get_irq_optional() changes
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:11:10PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 08:15:47PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > The platform_get_irq_optional() is going to be changed in a way
> > that the result of it:
> > = 0 means no IRQ is provided
> > < 0 means the error which needs to be propagated to the upper layers
> > > 0 valid vIRQ is allocated
> >
> > In this case, drop check for 0. Note, the 0 is not valid vIRQ and
> > platform_get_irq_optional() issues a big WARN() in such case,
> >
> > It's safe to assume that 0 is not valid IRQ in this case since
> > the driver is only instantiated via Device Tree and corresponding
> > OF APIs should never ever return 0 for valid IRQ. Otherwise it is
> > a regression there.
>
> Can it be applied now?
What changed to make this viable?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists