On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 02:40:18AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > 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." Ahh. Forget it, the remark was for the of/irq.c fix itself. So, we need the http://lkml.org/lkml/2011/11/10/290 fix. Otherwise the driver is indeed broken for ARM. Would be great if somebody could test it. 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
