Hi Linus,
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 1, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> - Drivers that call irq_find_mapping(), irq_create_mapping(), or
>>>>> irq_create_fwspec_mapping() return zero! This also applies to the
>>>>> core helper gpiochip_to_irq().
>>>>
>>>> Zero means NO_IRQ.
>>>>
>>>> Reminder:
>>>> http://lwn.net/Articles/470820/
>>>>
>>>> What we should do is patch all drivers to return 0 on failure, and
>>>> patch any consumers like mctrl_gpio_init() to handle that correctly.
>>>
>>> That's the Long Term Plan. There are still too many non-zero NO_IRQ
>>> definitions in use...
>>>
>>> Is -ENXIO acceptable for the short term?
>>
>> I don't understand. You say you have a problem with
>> mctrl_gpio_init() which looks like this:
>>
>> ret = gpiod_to_irq(gpios->gpio[i]);
>> if (ret <= 0) {
>> dev_err(port->dev, (...)
>>
>> This function is already *correctly* handling zero as NO_IRQ
>> i.e. an error.
>>
>> Just make your driver return 0/NO_IRQ and it is fixed.
>>
>> Or are there other problems that you're not telling about?
[silly response deleted]
Scrap it.
The only annoying thing is that 0 cannot easily be propagated upstream as
an error code, so it has to be tested for explicitly.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
