Re: [PATCH] Define a NO_GPIO macro to compare against and to use as an invalid GPIO

[Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@pengutronix.de>]

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