Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753117AbbGWN1C (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:27:02 -0400 Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:58228 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752394AbbGWN04 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 09:26:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 15:26:53 +0200 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Linus Walleij Cc: Octavian Purdila , Jonathan Cameron , Mika Westerberg , Hartmut Knaack , Lars-Peter Clausen , Peter Meerwald , Alessandro Zummo , Srinivas Pandruvada , "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" , "rtc-linux@googlegroups.com" , lkml Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] iio: fix drivers that consider 0 as a valid IRQ in client->irq Message-ID: <20150723132653.GT2853@piout.net> References: <1433512783-8183-1-git-send-email-octavian.purdila@intel.com> <1433512783-8183-2-git-send-email-octavian.purdila@intel.com> 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: 1769 Lines: 48 On 23/07/2015 at 15:11:47 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote : > On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Octavian Purdila > wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Octavian Purdila > > wrote: > >> Since patch "i2c / ACPI: Use 0 to indicate that device does not have > >> interrupt assigned" [1], 0 is not a valid i2c client irq anymore, so > >> change all driver's checks accordingly. > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> [1] http://lkml.kernel.org/g/<1430908148-201129-3-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila > >> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg > > > > Hi Jonathan, > > > > Does this look OK to you? If so, could you pleas ACK the patch so that > > Linus can pick it up in its for-next branch if/when needed? > > Me or Torvalds? > > This looks more like a Wolfram patch to me if it should not > go through IIO. > The first cover letter had: "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)?" I believe it was referring to you ;). I can take the rtc patch if you don't plan to take it. -- 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/