From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 11:49:52 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] ata: Don't use NO_IRQ in pata_of_platform driver
In-Reply-To: <20111206113735.GC2274@linaro.org>
References: <1322867573.11728.22.camel@pasglop>
 <20111205161157.GA27550@localhost.localdomain>
 <alpine.LFD.2.02.1112051236350.2357@xanadu.home>
 <20111205180253.GB29812@localhost.localdomain>
 <alpine.LFD.2.02.1112051310150.2357@xanadu.home>
 <20111205192605.GD29812@localhost.localdomain>
 <alpine.LFD.2.02.1112051443190.2357@xanadu.home>
 <20111206093709.GB2274@linaro.org>
 <20111206104654.GN14542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <20111206113735.GC2274@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <20111206114952.GS14542@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:37:35AM +0000, Dave Martin wrote:
> 1) All OF code and drivers should be migrating to use 0 instead of NO_IRQ
>    for the no-interrupt case.  Code which receives irq numbers directly
>    from the OF framework and refers to NO_IRQ, or expects 0 to be a valid
>    needs to be fixed.
> 
> 2) Where we hit a problem, board code needs to be adapted to remap HW IRQs
>    0-15 to different software values.  (This could be done using irq
>    domains, or not)

No AMBA driver I'm aware of ever uses an IRQ number 0 or is passed such
an IRQ number.