From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760639Ab2D0S4w (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:56:52 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:36002 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754820Ab2D0S4u (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:56:50 -0400 From: Grant Likely Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqdomain: print a warning if domains contain IRQ 0 To: Linus Walleij Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Linus Walleij , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: References: <1334756420-12019-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <1334787792.3143.19.camel@pasglop> <20120419182917.2F64E3E0700@localhost> Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:56:48 -0600 Message-Id: <20120427185648.47F393E0B4D@localhost> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:38:05 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Grant Likely wrote: > > > This is indeed specific to the legacy domain.  I think the patch is > > good and it will help weed out unintended irq0 users.  However, it > > requires the following additional fix I think.  It will need to be > > tested to make sure it doesn't break PowerPC ISA users. > > > > g. > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/irqdomain.h b/include/linux/irqdomain.h > > index d0995bd..31f1f88 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/irqdomain.h > > +++ b/include/linux/irqdomain.h > > @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ static inline struct irq_domain *irq_domain_add_legacy_isa( > >                                const struct irq_domain_ops *ops, > >                                void *host_data) > >  { > > -       return irq_domain_add_legacy(of_node, NUM_ISA_INTERRUPTS, 0, 0, ops, > > +       return irq_domain_add_legacy(of_node, NUM_ISA_INTERRUPTS-1, 1, 1, ops, > >                                     host_data); > > Hm, so what does this do? If I fold it into my patch I need some > kind of blurb... > > I'm guessing it bumps the ISA IRQs with one to avoid using IRQ0 which > seems like a valid patch on its own, and that the old code was > used for actively ignoring IRQ 0 on ISA (not used or whatever)? Yes, that is exactly what it does. The fact that 0 is allowed but never used is an artifact of how this code used to be only for ISA and both irq and hwirq base numbers were hard coded to 0 for that. The reworked legacy domain allowed both irq base and hwirq base to be non-zero, but the check for 0 code remained. g.