[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z4-iKkPHmrwD5ZBc@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 15:33:30 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andre Werner <andre.werner@...tec-electronic.com>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, jirislaby@...nel.org,
hvilleneuve@...onoff.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, lech.perczak@...lingroup.com,
Maarten.Brock@...ls.nl
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] serial: sc16is7xx: Fix IRQ number check behavior
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 08:18:19AM +0100, Andre Werner wrote:
> The logical meaning of the previous version is wrong due to a typo.
>
> If the IRQ equals 0, no interrupt pin is available and polling mode
> shall be used.
>
> Additionally, this fix adds a check for IRQ < 0 to increase robustness,
> because documentation still says that negative IRQ values cannot be
> absolutely ruled-out.
>
> Fixes: 104c1b9dde9d859dd01bd2d ("serial: sc16is7xx: Add polling mode if no IRQ pin is available")
>
This blank line is redundant (should not exists in the tag block).
Otherwise LGTM, thanks for pursuing this!
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists