Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> writes: > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> > wrote: >> Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> writes: >> >>> We'd like to eventually remove NO_IRQ on powerpc, so remove usages of it >>> from electra_cf.c which is a powerpc-only driver. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> >>> --- >>> drivers/pcmcia/electra_cf.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> Ping anyone? >> >> Or should I merge this via the powerpc tree? > > That's what I would recommend for a powerpc specific pcmcia driver, yes.
Suits me. > Looking at the bigger picture of powerpc drivers using NO_IRQ, I also > see these others: > > drivers/ata/pata_mpc52xx.c: if (ata_irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/ata/sata_dwc_460ex.c:#ifndef NO_IRQ > drivers/ata/sata_dwc_460ex.c:#define NO_IRQ 0 > drivers/ata/sata_dwc_460ex.c: if (hsdev->dma->irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/ata/sata_dwc_460ex.c: if (irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/iommu/fsl_pamu.c: if (irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/iommu/fsl_pamu.c: if (irq != NO_IRQ) > drivers/media/platform/fsl-viu.c: if (viu_irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/mtd/nand/mpc5121_nfc.c: if (prv->irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/pcmcia/electra_cf.c: cf->irq = NO_IRQ; > drivers/pcmcia/electra_cf.c: if (cf->irq != NO_IRQ) > drivers/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.c:/* Return an interrupt vector or NO_IRQ if > no interrupt is pending. */ > drivers/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.c: return NO_IRQ; > drivers/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.c:/* Return an interrupt vector or NO_IRQ if > no interrupt is pending. */ > drivers/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.c: return NO_IRQ; > drivers/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.c: if (qe_ic->virq_low == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.c: if (qe_ic->virq_high != NO_IRQ && > drivers/spi/spi-mpc52xx.c: if (status && (irq != NO_IRQ)) > drivers/tty/ehv_bytechan.c: if (stdout_irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/tty/ehv_bytechan.c: if ((bc->rx_irq == NO_IRQ) || > (bc->tx_irq == NO_IRQ)) { > drivers/tty/serial/cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c: if (pinfo->port.irq == > NO_IRQ) { > drivers/uio/uio_fsl_elbc_gpcm.c: if (irq != NO_IRQ) { > drivers/uio/uio_fsl_elbc_gpcm.c: irq = NO_IRQ; > drivers/uio/uio_fsl_elbc_gpcm.c: irq != NO_IRQ ? irq : -1); > drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c: if (irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/usb/host/ehci-ppc-of.c: if (irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/usb/host/fhci-hcd.c: if (usb_irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/usb/host/ohci-ppc-of.c: if (irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/usb/host/uhci-grlib.c: if (irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/video/fbdev/mb862xx/mb862xxfbdrv.c: if (par->irq == NO_IRQ) { > drivers/virt/fsl_hypervisor.c: if (!handle || (irq == NO_IRQ)) { > include/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.h: if (cascade_irq != NO_IRQ) > include/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.h: if (cascade_irq != NO_IRQ) > include/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.h: if (cascade_irq != NO_IRQ) > include/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.h: if (cascade_irq != NO_IRQ) > include/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.h: if (cascade_irq == NO_IRQ) > include/soc/fsl/qe/qe_ic.h: if (cascade_irq != NO_IRQ) > > Did you have other pending patches for those? No. I stayed away from anything FSL related as I was under the impression some of them were being ported to arch/arm, which uses -1 for NO_IRQ IIUIC. eg. all of include/soc/fsl and drivers/soc/fsl was moved from arch/powerpc in commit 7aa1aa6ecec2, which said: QE: Move QE from arch/powerpc to drivers/soc ls1 has qe and ls1 has arm cpu. move qe from arch/powerpc to drivers/soc/fsl to adapt to powerpc and arm But looking at the Kconfigs it looks like they're still only selectable on PPC. So that's a bit annoying. I'll do patches for everything above that's not drivers/soc or include/soc and hopefully we can hear from someone at NXP on the plans for getting the soc parts enabled on arm. cheers