On 11/12/2017 at 15:01:29 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 12:49:50PM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > Maybe the good thing to do is to actaully leave the nuc900 code alone > > instead of trying to change something that never failed and that doesn't > > seem to interest anyone anymore (else the platform would have been > > converted to DT). > > > > I don't know. The bug is less than a month old and this discussion has > been useful for me as I review any platform_get_irq() changes sent to > staging. > What I meant is that the original code before this "fix" was more that 7 years old and nobody ever had any issues. And that's because getting that IRQ on that platform will simply never fail. Also, I really doubt anybody is going to copy paste from the nuc900-ac97 driver so I'm really wondering whether it is worth fixing this non-issue. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
