Thread (58 messages) 58 messages, 15 authors, 2011-12-07

Re: [PATCH] ata: Don't use NO_IRQ in pata_of_platform driver

From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Date: 2011-12-05 19:19:21
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, linux-ide, linux-next, lkml

On Mon, 2011-12-05 at 18:45 +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
quoted
But as you illustrated, there is a large number of drivers that already 
assume no IRQ is < 0, even if they don't use any IRQ #0 themselves.  
That is a much bigger problem to fix.
And a much larger number assuming the reverse is true which are hiding
potential bugs on ARM.

Looking at the serial stuff the best checks appear to be looking at
"irq", "-1" and NO_IRQ.

For migration stuff that's doing broken things like

	if (irq < 0)

can be changed to

	if (irq <= 0)

and that can be done before NO_IRQ itself is nailed on ARM and PA-RISC.
To be honest, we don't care very much.  Parisc interrupts are cascading
and mostly software assigned (except our EIEM which we keep internal).
We use a base offset at 16 or 64 (depending on GSC presence or not) so
IRQs 0-15 aren't legal on parisc either (we frob some of the hard coded
ISA interrupts on the WAX eisa bus).

We use NO_IRQ as an IRQ assignment error return and that's about it (and
that error shouldn't ever really occur).

James
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help