Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965220AbbFCROJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:14:09 -0400 Received: from smtp-out-080.synserver.de ([212.40.185.80]:1057 "EHLO smtp-out-080.synserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965198AbbFCRNu (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2015 13:13:50 -0400 X-SynServer-TrustedSrc: 1 X-SynServer-AuthUser: lars@metafoo.de X-SynServer-PPID: 26689 Message-ID: <556F35C9.4090208@metafoo.de> Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 19:13:45 +0200 From: Lars-Peter Clausen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexandre Belloni , Octavian Purdila CC: Linus Walleij , Mika Westerberg , Jonathan Cameron , Hartmut Knaack , Peter Meerwald , Alessandro Zummo , Srinivas Pandruvada , linux-iio@vger.kernel.org, rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] change "client->irq >= 0" to "client->irq > 0" References: <1433280853-3988-1-git-send-email-octavian.purdila@intel.com> <20150603110241.GK1715@piout.net> In-Reply-To: <20150603110241.GK1715@piout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1457 Lines: 32 On 06/03/2015 01:02 PM, Alexandre Belloni 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. If IRQ 0 is valid, that's a bug. IRQ 0 has been an invalid IRQ number in the global IRQ namespace for a while now. Though architectures are allowed to have a valid IRQ 0, but it may only be used inside the architecture code itself and must not be used for IRQs that are potentially be used by drivers. - Lars -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/