On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 02:34:02AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 07:19:17PM +0000, Dave Martin wrote: > [...] > > > > > Drivers should not use NO_IRQ; moreover, some architectures don't > > > > > have it nowadays. '0' is the 'no irq' case. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > In case if we don't want a "band-aid fix" for 3.2, here is the patch > > > that just does the proper fix (w/ a risk to break minor architectures). > > > > This is now broken on ARM where, for good or bad, NO_IRQ currently is > > used and is -1. > > > > How do we resolve it? > > One option is to test this patch on a board that is now broken: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/10/290 Oh, actually, reading my own patch: "ARM defines NO_IRQ to -1, but OF code relies on IRQ domains support, which returns correct ('0') value in 'no irq' case. So everything should be fine." I forgot that on ARM we use IRQ domains, so ARM should be OK. Do you really see any breakage, and if so, what board? Thanks, -- Anton Vorontsov Email: cbouatmailru@xxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
