Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 6 Sep 2016 16:45:30 +0100 | From | Lee Jones <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mfd: ucb1x00: remove NO_IRQ check |
| |
On Tue, 06 Sep 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> You need to send this _to_ me as I need to merge it with my other > changes. This patch on its own does not make sense - it only makes > sense with the rest of my SA11x0 patch stack. > > NAK for Lee to merge this.
So if I were to accept this patch, would anything break? In other words, is there an ordering issue where this this change relies on something you have in your tree?
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:03:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > probe_irq_off() returns '0' on failure, not NO_IRQ, so the check > > in this driver is clearly wrong. This replaces it with the > > regular '!irq' check used in other drivers. > > > > The sa1100 platform that this driver is used on originally numbered > > all its interrupts starting at '0', which would have conflicted with > > this change, but as of commit 18f3aec ("ARM: 8230/1: sa1100: shift > > IRQs by one"), this is not a problem any more. > > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > > --- > > drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c b/drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c > > index 48bea5038654..d6fb2e1a759a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c > > @@ -537,7 +537,7 @@ static int ucb1x00_probe(struct mcp *mcp) > > ucb1x00_enable(ucb); > > ucb->irq = ucb1x00_detect_irq(ucb); > > ucb1x00_disable(ucb); > > - if (ucb->irq == NO_IRQ) { > > + if (!ucb->irq) { > > dev_err(&ucb->dev, "IRQ probe failed\n"); > > ret = -ENODEV; > > goto err_no_irq; >
-- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
| |