Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756282AbbFCTUh (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:20:37 -0400 Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:38326 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751753AbbFCTU2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Jun 2015 15:20:28 -0400 Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 21:20:26 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Octavian Purdila Cc: Linus Walleij , Mika Westerberg , Jonathan Cameron , Hartmut Knaack , Lars-Peter Clausen , Peter Meerwald , Alessandro Zummo , Srinivas Pandruvada , "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com, lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] change "client->irq >= 0" to "client->irq > 0" Message-ID: <20150603192026.GO1715@piout.net> References: <1433280853-3988-1-git-send-email-octavian.purdila@intel.com> <20150603110241.GK1715@piout.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1912 Lines: 44 On 03/06/2015 at 20:05:56 +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote : > On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:02 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. > > > > Device tree instantiation does not allow you to used IRQ 0 anyway. And > here is what Linus said about this: > > http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/no_irq.html I'm pretty sure his point doesn't hold anymore 10 years later. I don't believe ARM is "the small percentage of a small percentage of a small percentage" anymore and it is probably more tested than it was at the time. Anyway, I'm fine with the change, you can add my Acked-by: Alexandre Belloni for your v2. -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- 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/