On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 01:05:53PM +0300, Alexander Shiyan wrote: > Mon, 17 Nov 2014 10:59:09 +0100 от Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > Hello Richard, > > > > > >>>> So finally the prototypes would be: > > > >>>> int mctrl_gpio_request_irqs(struct mctrl_gpios*, struct > > > >>>> uart_port*, irqhandler_t); > > > >>>> void mctrl_gpio_free_irqs(struct mctrl_gpios*); > > > >> > > > >> I think: > > > >> > > > >> struct mctrl_gpios { > > > >> struct uart_port *port; > > > >> struct { > > > >> gpio_desc *gpio; > > > >> unsigned int irq; > > > I think it's just "int irq;" there > > irqs are unsigned. Some functions returning an irq use "int", but > > depending on who you ask this only for error reporting or a relict. > > Use 0 for invalid/unused in mctrl_gpio*. > > afaik, IRQ 0 is valid irq number. No. IRQ0 is not a valid IRQ number, it's a historical mistake to think it is (and it is something which needs correcting.) -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html