From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757725Ab3GZD4j (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:56:39 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f173.google.com ([209.85.214.173]:39231 "EHLO mail-ob0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756215Ab3GZD4f (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 23:56:35 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1326313337-24603-1-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <1326313337-24603-12-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> From: Grant Likely Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:56:14 -0600 X-Google-Sender-Auth: M2-_6EgsJTyRb5hhK8BVhCGaLus Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC 11/14] powerpc: Eliminate NO_IRQ usage To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Rob Herring , Thomas Gleixner , "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" , Russell King , Stephen Rothwell , Linux-Next , Linux-Arch Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Grant Likely wrote: >> NO_IRQ is evil. Stop using it in arch/powerpc and powerpc device drivers > >> diff --git a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_ssi.c b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_ssi.c >> index 3e06696..55c6ff9 100644 >> --- a/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_ssi.c >> +++ b/sound/soc/fsl/fsl_ssi.c >> @@ -666,7 +666,7 @@ static int __devinit fsl_ssi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> ssi_private->ssi_phys = res.start; >> >> ssi_private->irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0); >> - if (ssi_private->irq == NO_IRQ) { >> + if (!ssi_private->irq) { >> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no irq for node %s\n", np->full_name); >> ret = -ENXIO; >> goto error_iomap; > > What's the plan with this patch? > > This is now failing on xtensa, as it's one of the architectures that doesn't > define NO_IRQ. Only arm, c6x, mn10300, openrisc, parisc, powerpc, and sparc > define it. Wow. I'd pretty much dropped that patch because I didn't have time to chase it down. It should be pursued though. In that particular case it is safe I think to apply the change. PPC defines NO_IRQ to be 0 anyway. g.