Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 04 Jan 2022 11:13:43 +0000 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] platform: finally disallow IRQ0 in platform_get_irq() and its ilk |
| |
On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 10:53:34 +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 04, 2022 at 10:48:00AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Tue, 04 Jan 2022 09:47:21 +0000, > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:26 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > Geert recently mentioned that a few architectures (such as sh?) still > > > > use IRQ0 as something valid in limited cases. > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAMuHMdUg3=q7gyaVHP0XcYUOo3PQUUv8Hc8wp5faVQ+bTBpg4A@mail.gmail.com > > > > > > TL;DR: Probably only smsc911x Ethernet on the AP-SH4A-3A and > > > AP-SH4AD-0A boards, which should trigger the warning since v5.8. > > > > > > > From my PoV, this patch is fine, but please be prepared to fix things > > > > in a couple of years when someone decides to boot a recent kernel on > > > > their pet dinosaur. With that in mind: > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> > > > > > > TBH, I don't see much point in this patch, as the WARN() has been > > > there since a while, and the end goal is to return zero instead of > > > -ENXIO for no interrupt, right? > > > > I think the end-goal is to never return 0. Either we return a valid > > interrupt number, or we return an error. It should be the > > responsibility of the caller to decide what they want to do in the > > error case. > > As 0 still is a valid irq for some platforms (as mentioned above), then > how is this ever going to be possible?
Fixing the offending platforms should be a pre-requisite. At least the ones we know about.
Thanks,
M.
-- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
| |