On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 09:55:24AM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 09/17/2015 12:19 PM, Caesar Wang wrote:
> >
> >
> >在 2015年09月17日 18:06, Daniel Lezcano 写道:
> >>On 09/17/2015 11:28 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:
> >>>Hi Daniel,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>在 2015年09月17日 17:11, Daniel Lezcano 写道:
> >>>>
> >>>>Hi Caesar,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>On 09/17/2015 09:51 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:
> >>>>>Build the arm64 SoCs (e.g.: RK3368) on Rockchip platform,
> >>>>>There are some failure with build up on timer driver for rockchip.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>logs:
> >>>>>...
> >>>>>drivers/clocksource/rockchip_timer.c:156:13: error: 'NO_IRQ'
> >>>>>undeclared
> >>>>
> >>>>I think the NO_IRQ definition is missing for ARM64.
> >>>
> >>>Yep, Maybe better to compatible if we don't use the 'NO_IRQ',
> >>
> >>Hmm, after digging into drivers/of/irq.c and kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
> >>
> >>when there is an error it returns zero. So NO_IRQ and -1 are not
> >>correct and on the other side zero can be a valid irq. That sounds a
> >>little bit fuzzy to me.
> >
> >I believe the 'NO_IRQ' is better select if 'NO_IRQ' is defined on ARM64
> >platform.
> >
> > irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0);
> >
> > if (irq == NO_IRQ)
> >...
> >Also, that's ok if we instead of the 'irq < 0' or '!irq' , right?
>
>
> Hi Caesar,
>
> so regarding Thomas and Russel answers, let's replace NO_IRQ by '!irq'.
^
Definitely in this case. irq_create_of_mapping() and therefore
irq_of_parse_and_map() both return _zero_ when they fail, not whatever
happens to be NO_IRQ on a particular architecture. New code should
_never_ be making any use of NO_IRQ.
That's why I said:
"Modern drivers should _all_ be using !irq to detect invalid IRQs, and not
using NO_IRQ."
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
