Re: [PATCH] ata: Don't use NO_IRQ in pata_of_platform driver

Nicolas Pitre
2011-12-05T18:18:37Z

On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Dave Martin wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 12:40:16PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Dave Martin wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 10:12:53AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 11:28 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > > Don't *change* NO_IRQ to zero (that whole #define is broken - leave it
> > > > > around as a marker of brokenness), just start removing it from all the
> > > > > ARM drivers that use the OF infrastructure. Which is presumably not
> > > > > all that many yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > So whenever you find breakage, the fix now is to just remove NO_IRQ
> > > > > tests, and replace them with "!irq".
> > > >
> > >
> > > Russell, do you know whether it would make sense to set a timeline for
> > > removing NO_IRQ from ARM platforms and migrating to 0 for the no-interrupt
> > > case? I'm assuming that this mainly involves migrating existing hard-wired
> > > code that deals with interrupt numbers to use irq domains.
> >
> > How many drivers do use IRQ #0 to start with? We might discover that in
> > practice there is only a very few cases where this is an issue if 0
> > would mean no IRQ.
>
> The total number of files referring to NO_IRQ is not that huge:
>
> arch/arm/ 188 matches in 39 files
> drivers/ 174 matches in 84 files
>
> Unfortunately, NO_IRQ is often not spelled "NO_IRQ". It looks like the assumption
> "irq < 0 === no irq" may be quite a lot more widespread than "NO_IRQ === no irq".
> Since there's no specific thing we can grep for (and simply due to volume)
> finding all such instances may be quite a bit harder.
[...]

ARgh.

My point was about current actual usage of the IRQ numbered 0 which
probably prompted the introduction of NO_IRQ in the first place. What I
was saying is that the number of occurrences where IRQ #0 is currently
used into drivers that would get confused if 0 would mean no IRQ is
probably quite small.

But as you illustrated, there is a large number of drivers that already
assume no IRQ is < 0, even if they don't use any IRQ #0 themselves.
That is a much bigger problem to fix.

Nicolas