On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 11:15:02PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > Nope, it was a bug in the i2c documentation fixed recently:
>
> Nope? I'm looking into i2c-core.c:
>
> .. i2c_new_device(...)
> {
> client->irq = info->irq;
>
> Core will blindly pass irq, so clients should ensure that irq contains
> correct value. And as far as there is no common scheme of checking that
> "there is no irq specified", the most safe option is -1.I wonder if -1 is really the safest; even kernel functions related to irqs are not consistent if "irq" is int or unsigned int. So, -1 could cause subtle signedness defects. The whole "no irq" mess really needs to be cleared generally. It just disturbed me that i2c_core was imposing -1, whilst some other subsystem may have chosen 0. IMHO, subsystems like i2c should pass irqs transparently. This is why I submitted the patch for i2c documentation. All the best, Wolfram -- Dipl.-Ing. Wolfram Sang | http://www.pengutronix.de Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
