Re: [PATCH 4/7] can/at91: don't check platform_get_irq's return valueagainst zero

[Wolfgang Grandegger]

Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 05:27:03PM +0100, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
>> Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> platform_get_irq returns -ENXIO on failure, so !irq was probably
>>> always true.  Better use (int)irq <= 0.  Note that a return value of
>>> zero is still handled as error even though this could mean irq0.
>> But only on ARM, which is the only platform still using the infamous
>> NO_IRQ (=-1). As this is a driver for ARM hardware, using irq == NO_IRQ
>> would make sense, though.
> 
> This has nothing to do with NO_IRQ.  You could do:

Right, sorry for the noise.

> -       if (!res || !irq) {
> +       if (!res || irq <= (int)NO_IRQ) {
> 
> but this looks too ugly.  (IMHO using NO_IRQ is already ugly.)
> 
> Still, before my patch platform_get_irq return 0 was an error and if
> this should be handled as irq0 this is a separate issue that should be
> fixed in a separate patch.

"irq <= 0" seems then the best solution. Will add my signed-off-by to
the patch.

Thanks,

Wolfgang.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/