[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dfa7d5d7-2501-4c5f-a6e2-792c7aeb9bb3@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 16:58:56 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Richard Fitzgerald <rf@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Simon Trimmer <simont@...nsource.cirrus.com>,
linux-sound@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...nsource.cirrus.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: cs35l56: Accept values greater than 0 as IRQ
numbers
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 03:33:59PM +0100, Richard Fitzgerald wrote:
> On 17/06/2024 15:04, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Have all architectures removed 0 as a valid IRQ?
> From discussion threads we can find 0 might still used on x86 for a
> legacy device.
Some of the arm platforms were also an issue in the past, though
possibly they've all been modernised by now. Don't know about other
older architectures.
> But the conversations we can find on this don't seem to exclude passing
> a negative error number, just that 0 can normally be assumed invalid.
Yes, the question was specifically about the assumption that 0 is
invalid. The status of 0 is kind of a mess, people keep assuming that
it isn't valid and it just depends if users of platforms which try to
use 0 trip up over it. Sometimes people work on trying to eliminate
uses of 0 but it tends to get you into older code nobody wants to touch.
> The kerneldoc for SPI says:
> * @irq: Negative, or the number passed to request_irq() to receive
> * interrupts from this device.
Which includes the 0 as valid thing...
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists