From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wolfgang Grandegger Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] can/at91: don't check platform_get_irq's return value against zero Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:27:03 +0100 Message-ID: <4B290A57.3010705@grandegger.com> References: <1260979809-24811-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1260979809-24811-2-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1260979809-24811-3-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <1260979809-24811-4-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Vrabel , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Urs Thuermann , Oliver Hartkopp , "David S. Miller" , Kurt Van Dijck , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=F6nig?= Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1260979809-24811-4-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: > platform_get_irq returns -ENXIO on failure, so !irq was probably > always true. Better use (int)irq <=3D 0. Note that a return value o= f > zero is still handled as error even though this could mean irq0. But only on ARM, which is the only platform still using the infamous NO_IRQ (=3D-1). As this is a driver for ARM hardware, using irq =3D=3D = NO_IRQ would make sense, though. Wolfgang.