Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/7] [AVR32] don't check platform_get_irq's return value against zero | From | Hans-Christian Egtvedt <> | Date | Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:30:50 +0100 |
| |
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 10:15 +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Hans-Christian, > > On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:58:03AM +0100, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 08:45 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 05:10:03PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > platform_get_irq returns -ENXIO on failure, so !int_irq was probably > > > > always true. Better use (int)int_irq <= 0. Note that a return value of > > > > zero is still handled as error even though this could mean irq0. > > > > Indeed, but external interrupts are numbered after the internal > > interrupt lines, so in practice this does not happen. At least for now > > with the AP700X series. > > > > > > This is a followup to 305b3228f9ff4d59f49e6d34a7034d44ee8ce2f0 that > > > > changed the return value of platform_get_irq from 0 to -ENXIO on error. > > > > Thanks for this fix. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> > > > > Cc: David Vrabel <dvrabel@arcom.com> > > > > Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> > > > > Cc: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@atmel.com> > > > > Acked-by: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <hans-christian.egtvedt@atmel.com> > I thought this to go via the avr32 tree. You "only" acked, so what tree > do you consider here?
Right now there isn't any AVR32 tree, since I have yet to receive an answer to my kernel.org account request. Could you push it through Linus tree?
-- Hans-Christian Egtvedt
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |