lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/1] irqchip/stm32-exti: Use INVALID_HWIRQ definition
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 21:52:03 +0100,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> Use specific definition for invalid IRQ. It makes the
> code uniform in respect to the constant used for that.
> No functional change intended.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
> index a73763d475f0..a6ae9f38aaf0 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-stm32-exti.c
> @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ static const struct stm32_exti_bank *stm32mp1_exti_banks[] = {
> static struct irq_chip stm32_exti_h_chip;
> static struct irq_chip stm32_exti_h_chip_direct;
>
> -#define EXTI_INVALID_IRQ U8_MAX
> +#define EXTI_INVALID_IRQ ((u8)INVALID_HWIRQ)

This looks like a terrible idea. It gives the impression that you can
now rely on comparing the internal data structure field to
INVALID_HWIRQ. Which is of course bound to fail.

To be honest, I'd rather *kill* INVALID_HWIRQ, because apart from
cherryview, nobody even *checks* for this value by that name. So much
for the "code uniformity"...

M.

--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-07-16 11:43    [W:0.138 / U:0.352 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site