Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 26 Jul 2014 17:57:06 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] m68k/q40: Revert "m68k/q40: Fix q40_irq_startup() to return -ENXIO on failures" | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> wrote: > On 07/26/2014 11:21 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> I applied Nick's cleanup (which is not yet in mainline, just in the m68k repo) >> because I thought Nick was right (in this particular case ;-), cfr. my >> reasoning in www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg1774736.html >> >> W.r.t. the signess, I didn't see the compiler warning, as the version of gcc >> I'm using didn't print that warning. However, irq_startup() converts the >> value returned by .irq_startup() from unsigned to signed. >> I assume this is just a missing conversion when the genirq framework >> itself was introduced (m68k was converted quite late)? >> >> W.r.t. the actual value, any non-zero value is treated the same. >> I can change it to 1, if that makes you feel better. If returning a non-zero >> value here is wrong, presumable the code has been wrong since it >> incarnation. >> >> As we're close to the opening of the merge window, it would be nice >> if we could conclude on this ;-) > > From my standpoint there are two issues here: > > 1. The whole signed/unsigned mishmash here. Pretty much any solution > besides implicitly converting a signed value into an unsigned one > which then gets treated as something else entirely should be acceptable > here. > > 2. Beyond semantics, the original patch also changed the behaviour of > the code. What previously was a soft printk() is now a hard error. > Does it break any systems? Cornercases? I dunno, but I can assure you > that this wasn't tested at all.
If it broke something, it was most probably broken before commit c288bf2533e57174b90b07860c4391bcd1ea269c ("m68k/irq: Rename irq_controller to irq_chip"), too.
It seems the Q40 hardware cannot handle this case, so considering this a hard error looks fine to me (CC Richard Zidlicky).
> To sum it up, a solution would be welcome. The patch you currently have > in the m68k repo isn't a solution.
OK, reverted. Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |