On 10/6/22 14:49, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 06/10/2022 à 07:45, Damien Le Moal a écrit :
>> On 10/6/22 14:17, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>> NO_IRQ is used to check the return of irq_of_parse_and_map().
>>>
>>> On some architecture NO_IRQ is 0, on other architectures it is -1.
>>>
>>> irq_of_parse_and_map() returns 0 on error, independent of NO_IRQ.
>>>
>>> So use 0 instead of using NO_IRQ.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Doesn't this need fixes and cc:stable tags ?
>
> I don't think so, because the only user of this driver is powerpc and
> powerpc has NO_IRQ set to 0.
>
> I'm sending this because I was to remove NO_IRQ in powerpc in a second step.
OK. Got it. So queuing this for 6.2 is OK ? Or do you prefer seeing this
as a "fix" in 6.1 ?
>
>>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/ata/pata_mpc52xx.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_mpc52xx.c b/drivers/ata/pata_mpc52xx.c
>>> index 6559b606736d..3ebd6522a1fd 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/ata/pata_mpc52xx.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/ata/pata_mpc52xx.c
>>> @@ -731,7 +731,7 @@ static int mpc52xx_ata_probe(struct platform_device *op)
>>> udma_mask = ATA_UDMA2 & ((1 << (*prop + 1)) - 1);
>>>
>>> ata_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(op->dev.of_node, 0);
>>> - if (ata_irq == NO_IRQ) {
>>> + if (!ata_irq) {
>>> dev_err(&op->dev, "error mapping irq\n");
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
