Hi Jon,
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:42:21 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 15:07:40 -0500, Jon Smirl wrote:
> > Alter the mpc i2c driver to use the NO_IRQ symbol instead of
> > the constant zero when checking for valid interrupts. NO_IRQ=-1
> > on ppc and NO_IRQ=0 on powerpc so the checks against zero are
> > not correct.
>
> Using NO_IRQ sounds good, just one question:
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jon Smirl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ---
> >
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c | 10 +++++-----
> > 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c
> > index bbe787b..d20959d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mpc.c
> > @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ static int i2c_wait(struct mpc_i2c *i2c, unsigned
> > timeout, int writing)
> > u32 x;
> > int result = 0;
> >
> > - if (i2c->irq == 0)
> > + if (i2c->irq == NO_IRQ)
> > {
> > while (!(readb(i2c->base + MPC_I2C_SR) & CSR_MIF)) {
> > schedule();
> > @@ -329,7 +329,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > i2c->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > - if (i2c->irq < 0) {
> > + if (i2c->irq < NO_IRQ) {
>
> I am skeptical about this one. Can platform_get_irq() really return
> NO_IRQ? I thought that the IRQ resource would be plain missing if the
> device has no IRQ, so I would expect:
>
> i2c->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> if (i2c->irq < 0)
> i2c->irq = NO_IRQ; /* Use polling */
>
> Testing against NO_IRQ suggests that devices with no IRQ would still
> have an IRQ resource defined and explicitly set to NO_IRQ. Sounds weird
> to me. Can you please clarify this point?
>
> For what it's worth, no other kernel driver checks for irq < NO_IRQ.
> They all check for irq < 0 after calling platform_get_irq().
>
> > result = -ENXIO;
> > goto fail_get_irq;
> > }
> > @@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > goto fail_map;
> > }
> >
> > - if (i2c->irq != 0)
> > + if (i2c->irq != NO_IRQ)
> > if ((result = request_irq(i2c->irq, mpc_i2c_isr,
> > IRQF_SHARED, "i2c-mpc", i2c)) < 0) {
> > printk(KERN_ERR
> > @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > return result;
> >
> > fail_add:
> > - if (i2c->irq != 0)
> > + if (i2c->irq != NO_IRQ)
> > free_irq(i2c->irq, i2c);
> > fail_irq:
> > iounmap(i2c->base);
> > @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > i2c_del_adapter(&i2c->adap);
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> >
> > - if (i2c->irq != 0)
> > + if (i2c->irq != NO_IRQ)
> > free_irq(i2c->irq, i2c);
> >
> > iounmap(i2c->base);
>
> The rest looks good.
Any news about this patch? I had a question above which is left
unanswered. If you want this patch merged in 2.6.26 you'll have to be
quick.
--
Jean Delvare
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
