From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] clocksource: rockchip: Make the driver more readability
 and compatible
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 12:19:18 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509171217080.3951@nanos>
References: <1442476272-31723-1-git-send-email-wxt@rock-chips.com> <1442476272-31723-2-git-send-email-wxt@rock-chips.com> <55FA83D5.9010504@linaro.org> <55FA87AA.4040807@gmail.com> <55FA9099.7000903@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <55FA9099.7000903@linaro.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: Caesar Wang <caesar.upstream@gmail.com>, Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Caesar Wang <wxt@rock-chips.com>, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-rockchip.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 09/17/2015 11:28 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:
> > > I think the NO_IRQ definition is missing for ARM64.
> > 
> > Yep, Maybe better to compatible if we don't use the 'NO_IRQ',
> 
> Hmm, after digging into drivers/of/irq.c and kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
> 
> when there is an error it returns zero. So NO_IRQ and -1 are not correct and
> on the other side zero can be a valid irq. That sounds a little bit fuzzy to
> me.

IRQ0 is invalid for historical reasons. End of story.

Thanks,

	tglx