From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-can@vger.kernel.org,
sfr@canb.auug.org.au, andreas@gaisler.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] can: sja1000: fix compilation on x86
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 23:17:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <50CBA55F.6030300@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121214.163758.465958297963655994.davem@davemloft.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1381 bytes --]
On 12/14/2012 10:37 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 22:33:44 +0100
>
>> @@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ static int sja1000_ofp_probe(struct platform_device *ofdev)
>> }
>>
>> irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0);
>> - if (irq == NO_IRQ) {
>> + if (irq <= 0) {
>> dev_err(&ofdev->dev, "no irq found\n");
>> err = -ENODEV;
>> goto exit_unmap_mem;
>
> I don't see anything existing which says this is the proper
> transformation.
>
> There is no consistency at all for the tests of the return
> value of irq_of_parse_and_map().
Right. And the current status of NO_IRQ doesn't help much.
> And if anything testing against zero is the correct thing to
> do, universally.
I've looked at the implementation of irq_of_parse_and_map() (both the
generic and sparc one), they both return 0 on failure. Because there are
some arch that define NO_IRQ being not 0, sparc (0xffffffff) and arm
(-1), I though testing against <= 0 would be a good idea.
> I'm not applying this or pulling from your tree, sorry.
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 |
Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de |
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 261 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-14 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-14 21:33 pull-request: can 2012-12-14 Marc Kleine-Budde
2012-12-14 21:33 ` [PATCH] can: sja1000: fix compilation on x86 Marc Kleine-Budde
2012-12-14 21:37 ` David Miller
2012-12-14 22:17 ` Marc Kleine-Budde [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-12-14 21:29 Marc Kleine-Budde
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=50CBA55F.6030300@pengutronix.de \
--to=mkl@pengutronix.de \
--cc=andreas@gaisler.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=linux-can@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.