Hi Linus, On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven >> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> - Drivers that call irq_find_mapping(), irq_create_mapping(), or >>>>> irq_create_fwspec_mapping() return zero! This also applies to the >>>>> core helper gpiochip_to_irq(). >>>> >>>> Zero means NO_IRQ. >>>> >>>> Reminder: >>>> http://lwn.net/Articles/470820/ >>>> >>>> What we should do is patch all drivers to return 0 on failure, and >>>> patch any consumers like mctrl_gpio_init() to handle that correctly. >>> >>> That's the Long Term Plan. There are still too many non-zero NO_IRQ >>> definitions in use... >>> >>> Is -ENXIO acceptable for the short term? >> >> I don't understand. You say you have a problem with >> mctrl_gpio_init() which looks like this: >> >> ret = gpiod_to_irq(gpios->gpio[i]); >> if (ret <= 0) { >> dev_err(port->dev, (...) >> >> This function is already *correctly* handling zero as NO_IRQ >> i.e. an error. >> >> Just make your driver return 0/NO_IRQ and it is fixed. >> >> Or are there other problems that you're not telling about? [silly response deleted] Scrap it. The only annoying thing is that 0 cannot easily be propagated upstream as an error code, so it has to be tested for explicitly. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
