Le 06/10/2022 à 08:30, Damien Le Moal a écrit :
> 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 ?
Yes 6.2 is fine.
Thanks
Christophe
>
>>
>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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;
>>>> }
>
