Re: [PATCH] ASoC: cs35l56: Accept values greater than 0 as IRQ numbers

[Richard Fitzgerald <rf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 18/06/2024 16:58, Mark Brown wrote:
> 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...
The statement of truth from Linus Torvalds et al. seems to be that 0 is
invalid except on x86. And on x86 it is specifically reserved for a
legacy timer IRQ so it can't be anything else.