From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Brown Subject: Re: linux-next: origin tree build failure Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:05:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20081015000541.GA22570@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <20081015095916.f30c0979.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:42903 "EHLO opensource2.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753867AbYJOAFn (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:05:43 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Liam Girdwood On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 04:43:12PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > I assume that broken driver is some ARM-specific thing. I certainly don't > want to see NO_IRQ in any general drivers. So instead of having that > NO_IRQ insanity spread any more, I'd much rather see the driver either > fixed to not use it, or just marked ARM-only. It's not ARM-specific, though the overwhelming majority of users will be ARM systems (it's an embedded PMIC) - I'll post a patch tomorrow changing it to check for non-zero IRQ instead. That makes other bits of the driver easier, anyway. > The proper way to test for whether an interrupt is valid or not is to do > if (dev->irq) { > ... > and no other. There is no spoon. That NO_IRQ was insane. And architectures > or drivers that still think otherwise should fix themselves. That would be people on the ARM list. Unless I misremember I first heard about using NO_IRQ from the ARM list in connection with another (much less ARM-specific) driver only within the past six months.