On 04/10/14 19:46, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Sat, Oct 4, 2014 at 8:26 AM, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 03/10/14 02:25, Fabio Estevam wrote: >>> From: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> There is no need to pass a 'fake' return value when platform_get_irq() fails. >>> >>> Propagate the real error instead. >>> >>> While at it, only consider negative numbers returned by platform_get_irq() >>> as error. >> Returning an irq of 0 is still invalid isn't it? >> (there was a lot of 'fun' making this true for Arm a few years back). >> Doesn't it effectively mean no irq is present? > > In practice I cannot see how platform_get_irq() could return 0. Only > if the dtsi was providing 0 as the irq number for the vf610-adc > driver, which would mean a very broken dtsi. > > This driver is used only by vf610 and imx6sx and their dtsi provide > the correct values for the adc irq. > > This type of check: > > if (irq < 0) > return irq; > > is commonly used on the imx drivers and I was not aware of any > problems in this regard. Fair enough. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
