Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Jun 2015 21:20:26 +0200 | From | Alexandre Belloni <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2] change "client->irq >= 0" to "client->irq > 0" |
| |
On 03/06/2015 at 20:05:56 +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote : > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Alexandre Belloni > <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> wrote: > > On 03/06/2015 at 00:34:11 +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote : > >> This fixes an issue introduces by commit dab472eb931b ("i2c / ACPI: > >> Use 0 to indicate that device does not have interrupt assigned") where > >> drivers will try to request IRQ 0 when no GpioInt is defined in ACPI. > >> > >> The same issue occurs when the device is instantiated via device tree > >> with no IRQ, or from the i2c sysfs interface, even before the patch > >> above. > >> > >> Linus, since the commit above was already merged in the GPIO tree, > >> should these fixes be merged also via the GPIO tree (with ACKs from > >> the others subsystem maintainers)? > >> > > > > Side question, has it been considered that IRQ 0 is valid on some > > platform and that means i2c devices will not be able to be wired to that > > IRQ anymore? Though, I don't think there are any existing design that > > does so. > > > > Device tree instantiation does not allow you to used IRQ 0 anyway. And > here is what Linus said about this: > > http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/no_irq.html
I'm pretty sure his point doesn't hold anymore 10 years later. I don't believe ARM is "the small percentage of a small percentage of a small percentage" anymore and it is probably more tested than it was at the time. Anyway, I'm fine with the change, you can add my Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> for your v2.
-- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
| |