On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Esben Haabendal
<esbenhaabendal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> @@ -121,8 +136,14 @@ struct mmc_spi_platform_data
>>> *mmc_spi_get_pdata(struct spi_device *spi)
>>> if (gpio_is_valid(oms->gpios[WP_GPIO]))
>>> oms->pdata.get_ro = of_mmc_spi_get_ro;
>>>
>>> - /* We don't support interrupts yet, let's poll. */
>>> - oms->pdata.caps |= MMC_CAP_NEEDS_POLL;
>>> + oms->detect_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0);
>>> + if (oms->detect_irq != NO_IRQ) {
>>
>> I'd write "if (oms->detect_irq)", which is a bit more natural
>> (and still correct, 0 is the only invalid VIRQ number).
>
> Most other architectures has NO_IRQ defined to -1, so I will stick
> with the NO_IRQ comparsion.
Not true. NO_IRQ is only defined as -1 on ARM, microblaze, mn10300
and parisc, and I've got a patch pending to remove microblaze from
that list. ARM just happens to be a really big user.
$ git grep NO_IRQ arch/*/include (I've trimmed the irrelevant matches)
arch/arm/include/asm/irq.h:#ifndef NO_IRQ
arch/arm/include/asm/irq.h:#define NO_IRQ ((unsigned int)(-1))
arch/microblaze/include/asm/irq.h:#define NO_IRQ (-1)
arch/mn10300/include/asm/irq.h:#define NO_IRQ INT_MAX
arch/parisc/include/asm/irq.h:#define NO_IRQ (-1)
arch/powerpc/include/asm/irq.h:#define NO_IRQ (0)
> Hopefully, arm users will soon enjoy this driver/wrapper soon also.
My hope is that even on ARM when the device tree is used I'll be able
eliminate IRQs mapped to 0 (but I need to do a lot more research on
how best to do that though). Are you actually using this on ARM?
I'm okay with you keeping the NO_IRQ test for the short term though.
g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
