Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964906AbZLPTSs (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:18:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760928AbZLPTSr (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:18:47 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:55064 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757315AbZLPTSr (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:18:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:18:39 +0100 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Anton Vorontsov Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Vrabel , Greg Kroah-Hartman , David Brownell , Grant Likely , Kumar Gala , Andrew Morton , spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net, Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] spi/mpc8xxx: don't check platform_get_irq's return value against zero Message-ID: <20091216191839.GA23614@pengutronix.de> References: <1260979809-24811-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1260979809-24811-2-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1260979809-24811-3-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1260979809-24811-4-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1260979809-24811-5-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1260979809-24811-6-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20091216163229.GA26350@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <20091216174904.GB26325@pengutronix.de> <20091216182034.GA7590@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20091216182034.GA7590@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:215:17ff:fe12:23b0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2751 Lines: 74 Hi Anton, On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 09:20:34PM +0300, Anton Vorontsov wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 06:49:04PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > [...] > > > Noooooo... :-( > > > > > > Please revert 305b3228f9ff4d59f49e6d34a7034d44ee8ce2f0 instead, > > > and fix platforms to remap HWIRQ0 to something that is not VIRQ0. > > > > > > IRQ0 is invalid for everything that is outside of arch/*. > > > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/22/159 > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/22/213 > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/22/227 > > First note that my check is safe with both variants (e.g. it does the > > right thing independent of the error being signaled by 0 or > > -ESOMETHING.) > > > > Then arch/arm/mach-pxa/devices.c has: > > > > static struct resource pxa27x_resource_ssp3[] = { > > ... > > [1] = { > > .start = IRQ_SSP3, > > .end = IRQ_SSP3, > > .flags = IORESOURCE_IRQ, > > }, > > ... > > } > > > > with IRQ_SSP3 being zero (sometimes). The driver is implemented in > > arch/arm/mach-pxa/ssp.c and uses platform_get_irq. > > So fix this *one* driver? Implement arm-specific platform_get_irq() as > a band-aid. Or better, implement virtual irqs <-> hardware irqs mapping > for ARM. > > [...] > > I'm a bit annoyed as this is the third time[1] this month this irq0 > > discussion pops up for me. I think people see that irq0 is involved > > somehow, start wailing and stop seeing the issues being fixed. > > For this particular driver, there is NO issue whatsoever. It is > only used for PowerPC, which has VIRQ0 == invalid IRQ. And note > that there still could be HWIRQ0 on PowerPC, but it is *never* > mapped to VIRQ0. Yes, there is an issue. If the platform device doesn't have a resource specifing the irq, platform_get_irq returns -ENXIO. So in the driver (unsigned)(-ENXIO) is passed to mpc8xxx_spi_probe as (!(-ENXIO)) is false and so the error isn't catched. > [...] > > [1] one is: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/924739 > > No wonder the discussion popped up. You're adding some ugly > #ifdef stuff that adds some arch-specific knowledge to a generic > code. I wouldn't argue if people objected to the arch-specific #ifdef. The arch-specific code is already in there and I don't object to just removing it. But answering that irq0 must not be used isn't helpful. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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/