Re: [PATCH 1/2] spi_imx.c: CSPI3 irq is 0 on imx25

[Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@gmail.com>]

2010/12/23 Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>:
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:12:09PM +0100, Richard Genoud wrote:
>> On imx25 soc, MX25_INT_CSPI3 is 0
>> (cf arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/mx25.h).
>> So, the test (spi_imx->irq <= 0) returned an error
>> for this platform.
>> This patch corrects this behaviour.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/spi/spi_imx.c |    2 +-
>>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/spi/spi_imx.c b/drivers/spi/spi_imx.c
>> index 55a38e2..793ae99 100644
>> --- a/drivers/spi/spi_imx.c
>> +++ b/drivers/spi/spi_imx.c
>> @@ -847,7 +847,7 @@ static int __devinit spi_imx_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>       }
>>
>>       spi_imx->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> -     if (spi_imx->irq <= 0) {
>> +     if (spi_imx->irq < 0) {
>
> I *really* don't want to apply this.  The kernel is slowly moving
> toward NO_IRQ == 0 for all architectures.  This patch is a step in the
> wrong direction because it will break with ARM starts using 0 for
> NO_IRQ.
>
> I would accept a change to spi_imx->irq == NO_IRQ however.
>
> g.
>

Actually, the description of the patch is wrong, but not the patch itself.
The test "if (spi_imx->irq <= 0)" is not testing the IRQ value, but
the return value of platform_get_irq().
And platform_get_irq() can return an error (-ENXIO) or the IRQ value it found.
So, as we are testing if platform_get_irq() failed or not, the test
should be "if (spi_imx->irq < 0)"

If you agree with that, I will resend the patch with a good description.

richard.


-- 
for me, ck means con kolivas and not calvin klein... does it mean I'm a geek ?