From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guennadi Liakhovetski Subject: Re: [PATCH] Define a NO_GPIO macro to compare against and to use as an invalid GPIO Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:59:39 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <200802081543.42467.david-b@pacbell.net> <200802091727.42628.david-b@pacbell.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200802091727.42628.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Brownell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, i2c@lm-sensors.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org David, you convinced me:-) I'll redo the patch. Just one comment: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, David Brownell wrote: > On Saturday 09 February 2008, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > > And when those platforms share drivers, problems > > arise. And the simple and efficient NO_IRQ notion, that would fis those > > problems nicely, cannot seem to establish itself. > > Inertia is one of the problems there ... plus, the only > obvious advantage of "#define NO_IRQ 0" is that it makes > it easier to be lazy about initialization. > > Plus, changing platforms to use that convention means they > mostly need to adopt an *unnatural* step of mapping from the > hardware IRQ numbers (which often start at zero, as they do > on one system I just ssh'd into) to some "logical" ID. > Even if you believe that's worthwhile, it's work; and it > could easily break something. NO_IRQ doesn't have to be 0. Platforms, where 0 is a valid number can use -1, or 256, or whatever they want:-) Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski