From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from services.gcu-squad.org (zone0.gcu-squad.org [212.85.147.21]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F91EDDF49 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:43:30 +1000 (EST) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:43:18 +0200 From: Jean Delvare To: Jon Smirl Subject: Re: [PATCH] mpc i2c driver, compare to NO_IRQ instead of zero Message-ID: <20080425114318.36e3fd03@hyperion.delvare> In-Reply-To: <20080219174221.5b18cba8@hyperion.delvare> References: <20080121200740.13800.20524.stgit@terra.home> <20080219174221.5b18cba8@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, i2c@lm-sensors.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi Jon, On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:42:21 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:07:40 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote: > > Alter the mpc i2c driver to use the NO_IRQ symbol instead of > > the constant zero when checking for valid interrupts. NO_IRQ=-1 > > on ppc and NO_IRQ=0 on powerpc so the checks against zero are > > not correct. > > Using NO_IRQ sounds good, just one question: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jon Smirl > > --- > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c | 10 +++++----- > > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c > > index bbe787b..d20959d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c > > @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ static int i2c_wait(struct mpc_i2c *i2c, unsigned timeout, int writing) > > u32 x; > > int result = 0; > > > > - if (i2c->irq == 0) > > + if (i2c->irq == NO_IRQ) > > { > > while (!(readb(i2c->base + MPC_I2C_SR) & CSR_MIF)) { > > schedule(); > > @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > i2c->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > > - if (i2c->irq < 0) { > > + if (i2c->irq < NO_IRQ) { > > I am skeptical about this one. Can platform_get_irq() really return > NO_IRQ? I thought that the IRQ resource would be plain missing if the > device has no IRQ, so I would expect: > > i2c->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > if (i2c->irq < 0) > i2c->irq = NO_IRQ; /* Use polling */ > > Testing against NO_IRQ suggests that devices with no IRQ would still > have an IRQ resource defined and explicitly set to NO_IRQ. Sounds weird > to me. Can you please clarify this point? > > For what it's worth, no other kernel driver checks for irq < NO_IRQ. > They all check for irq < 0 after calling platform_get_irq(). > > > result = -ENXIO; > > goto fail_get_irq; > > } > > @@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > goto fail_map; > > } > > > > - if (i2c->irq != 0) > > + if (i2c->irq != NO_IRQ) > > if ((result = request_irq(i2c->irq, mpc_i2c_isr, > > IRQF_SHARED, "i2c-mpc", i2c)) < 0) { > > printk(KERN_ERR > > @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > return result; > > > > fail_add: > > - if (i2c->irq != 0) > > + if (i2c->irq != NO_IRQ) > > free_irq(i2c->irq, i2c); > > fail_irq: > > iounmap(i2c->base); > > @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) > > i2c_del_adapter(&i2c->adap); > > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL); > > > > - if (i2c->irq != 0) > > + if (i2c->irq != NO_IRQ) > > free_irq(i2c->irq, i2c); > > > > iounmap(i2c->base); > > The rest looks good. Any news about this patch? I had a question above which is left unanswered. If you want this patch merged in 2.6.26 you'll have to be quick. -- Jean Delvare