From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx.linux.net.cn (unknown [210.82.31.146]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 751A1DDE07 for ; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 20:18:47 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <48EB296E.5050808@linux.net.cn> Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 17:18:38 +0800 From: Wang Jian MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tejun Heo Subject: Re: [PATCH] pata_of_platform: fix no irq handling References: <20081006172653.GA26427@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <48EA77EF.6080502@genesi-usa.com> <20081006213209.GA13072@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru> <48EABBD3.1010401@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <48EABBD3.1010401@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Li Yang , linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, Jeff Garzik List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Tejun Heo wrote: > Anton Vorontsov wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 03:41:19PM -0500, Matt Sealey wrote: >>> There is a simple problem with the patch which is that an "IRQ 0" can and does >>> actually exist on a bunch of platforms, at least to the best of my knowledge. >>> >>> Checking for -1 (which means for definite, no irq at all, because it is >>> totally unambiguous, as a -1 IRQ numbering is "impossible") is more correct. >> This was discussed years ago. >> >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/22/159 >> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/22/227 >> > > Would this break any existing platforms? If so, can those be fixed > together or does it become a much bigger problem that way? > Pata_of_platform stacks upon pata_platform. This patch fixes problem concerning definition of "no irq" without touch any other place. So far I can't see any new problem.