[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1488abfa-9a0e-970b-e074-11842a6c6413@hust.edu.cn>
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2023 09:50:26 +0800
From: Dongliang Mu <dzm91@...t.edu.cn>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Li Ningke <lnk_01@...t.edu.cn>,
hust-os-kernel-patches@...glegroups.com, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Dan Carpenter <error27@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: davinci: Remove dead code in `davinci_spi_probe()`
On 2023/4/24 23:52, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 08:03:42PM +0800, Dongliang Mu wrote:
>> On 2023/4/24 19:48, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> Is that check valid? 0 was a valid interrupt for some architectures...
>> We just follow the comments of platform_get_irq().
>> * Gets an IRQ for a platform device and prints an error message if finding
>> the
>> * IRQ fails. Device drivers should check the return value for errors so as
>> to
>> * not pass a negative integer value to the request_irq() APIs.
> I'm not sure that's universally true yet, though there were some moves
> to try to get us there. arm, where this driver is used, was one of the
> platforms with 0 as a valid interrupt.
Hi Brown,
First, we're sorry about the fact that our internal robot(beta) made a
mistake and sent our testing message to LKML. We have fixed the
incorrect logic.
Second, from code review of platform_get_irq /
platform_get_irq_optional, it would warn IRQ 0 as an invalid IRQ number.
out:
if (WARN(!ret, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n"))
return -EINVAL;
return ret;
Dongliang Mu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists