On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 09/17/2015 11:28 AM, Caesar Wang wrote: > > > I think the NO_IRQ definition is missing for ARM64. > > > > Yep, Maybe better to compatible if we don't use the 'NO_IRQ', > > Hmm, after digging into drivers/of/irq.c and kernel/irq/irqdomain.c > > when there is an error it returns zero. So NO_IRQ and -1 are not correct and > on the other side zero can be a valid irq. That sounds a little bit fuzzy to > me. IRQ0 is invalid for historical reasons. End of story. Thanks, tglx
