On 07/09/2013 04:06 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 08, 2013 at 09:46:41AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 07/05/2013 01:47 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 05, 2013 at 11:35:05AM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 07/04/2013 01:57 AM, Wei Ni wrote:
>>>>> Add support to handle irq. When the temperature touch
>>>>> the limit value, the driver can handle the interrupt.
>>>>
>>>>> + if (client->irq >= 0) {
>>>>
>>>> 0 isn't a valid IRQ, so you can write that as simply if (client->irq).
>>>>
>>> If I recall correctly, it is valid on some platforms.
>>
>> I thought ARM (just some ARM sub-architectures?) might have been the
>> last architecture, and even irrespective of that, we were trying not to
>> introduce any new code that relies on this strangeness, so it doesn't
>> propagate?
>>
> Sounds good to me. Another problem, though, may be that NO_IRQ is sometimes
> defined as -1, sometimes as 0, sometimes as 0xffffffff, and sometimes as INT_MAX.
> Which of course is another mess :(.
>
> Guenter
>
Ok, so I will use the "if (client->irq)".
Thanks.
Wei.
>
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
