On Wed, 18 Feb 2015, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> +static int mx25_tsadc_setup_irq(struct platform_device *pdev,
> >> >> + struct mx25_tsadc *tsadc)
> >> >> +{
> >> >> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> >> >> + struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
> >> >> + int irq;
> >> >> +
> >> >> + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> >> + if (irq < 0) {
> >> >
> >> > What if 0 is returned?
> >>
> >> Then imx25.dtsi would be passing irq=0 for the ADC, which would be
> >> totally wrong.
> >
> > Exactly, so it should be <=.
>
> imx25.dtsi passes interrupts = <46>; for the touch screen controller,
> so the irq number will never be zero.
It doesn't matter what happens to be passed at the moment. The
correct thing to do is enforce correct/full error checking. Yes <0 is
an error, but so is =0, so encompass it in the checks.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
