From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.11]) (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 0C1581D63EF; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 09:53:06 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.11 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737021188; cv=none; b=GPqYb1432krUtrsSlgPNJXYv405cJ0oRzwMOj/x0O9VgmLp/yxWn3rCvAjvFikilRt/tUblsyk8KO/t3f0oi9+vPeheST1Dz7bT8PerR2h+8s6ZvEBcOs4ZZPbiDCNZIiHjHLb+VkfrpDOs36qB/mDjYjgTRfo2N5Y2LcDM2PtA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1737021188; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fHUyZmn9mL1HyIhpk+D8LC4Re5LYvGt0wFtjeL6wdz4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=gyeW5pQDI6PPyOz1LdYil4LvJYuOOibjKCVIQOaT2viC1IAZ3LdtcD35Yg0oun1lnI0xKHWuW2PeSlMDyFfFZu2Ey7qJfi1GbNdVqG6DkY46Ucu+2NBZyiHVkY5F45c/40iA/IrZrUoXZEh5RIsiUjuMjX7wfpY6CmCcP3cz48w= 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=192.198.163.11 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: CxmYLlDKT4Gq6Gg1SoiRuw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: QqM94wvPQcWljHjllOlkiw== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11316"; a="47985548" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.13,209,1732608000"; d="scan'208";a="47985548" Received: from orviesa001.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.141]) by fmvoesa105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2025 01:53:06 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 9023VpLSQSK3qvUP7LwlnA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: uy1w48lVTMGbHjmIIFiv0g== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.12,224,1728975600"; d="scan'208";a="142698679" Received: from unknown (HELO smile.fi.intel.com) ([10.237.72.154]) by orviesa001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 16 Jan 2025 01:53:05 -0800 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.98) (envelope-from ) id 1tYMYf-00000001ckY-1WXI; Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:53:01 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2025 11:53:01 +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> 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: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo 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. ... > > - s->polling = !!irq; > > + s->polling = (irq <= 0); -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko