From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A8A51E86E; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 12:02:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737028924; cv=none; b=krXptUCPdcizy1d62TfOyj2jKLd1Hc+edKXcpfI0rVd4PmCtHz0fiOdEXgHcHYdzkg5vcq52DNlHKgrgU2ItgHHPwU2kN0SFlFisNYwTvJ98llBsMilKDSJlqUEXnKNATgV+zJ3XWMDt/WlyBuDaj/xSuVmHQdCqObrfZGQunqE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737028924; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tsg0IKuMb8zz0xiJdU3NcduFif97BuFbErgR5qyq3BM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Kt1xo/kQPCvl2V4yo6opxeXbWGoUJe/xf9QYVaB5mQKCzh6S1TFl+Zs1yXkb1lNGNohxLJikLN4qoR1YbwqsNg5YjFaRcdn/g67OyYsa+rx0BaSr123SbeU9YUkeDpQcmpqcXWZJ8J0Yc/KtpaHVf8p2G6jxqiJxVyeFklovVmY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.11 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kernel.org X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Tv0Y9UoKTLeacItKrXD0AQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: Z86abuIxTJipIyAFMpkGKA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11316"; a="47900943" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,209,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="47900943" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by orvoesa103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2025 04:02:03 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: EoccqJorStyim46Q5TgEMA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: cOgFKDAJQH2Xcx0CNeDMmw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.11,199,1725346800"; d="scan'208";a="110449732" Received: from unknown (HELO smile.fi.intel.com) ([10.237.72.154]) by orviesa003.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2025 04:02:01 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1tYOZS-00000001eop-0UuR; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 14:01:58 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 14:01:57 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Jiri Slaby Cc: Andre Werner , gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, hvilleneuve@dimonoff.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, lech.perczak@camlingroup.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] serial: sc16is7xx: Extend IRQ check for negative valus Message-ID: References: <20250116093203.460215-1-andre.werner@systec-electronic.com> <834d7b6e-27a4-41e9-b36b-2bcbd0504bd5@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <834d7b6e-27a4-41e9-b36b-2bcbd0504bd5@kernel.org> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 11:02:23AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 16. 01. 25, 10:53, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 10:42:14AM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote: > > > This is threaded weirdly. > > > > Yeah, new patch (version) — new email thread. > > > > > On 16. 01. 25, 10:32, Andre Werner wrote: > > > > Fix the IRQ check to treat the negative values as No IRQ. > > > > > > Care to describe on what HW that can happen? > > > > But how does this relevant? The whole idea is that neither I²C nor SPI > > frameworks do not guarantee the IRQ field never be negative. This is > > the fix to the previously submitted patch. > > They do AFAICS. They don't AFAICT. > Could you be more specific? The documentation of the fields and their types suggests my way of perception. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko