Re: [PATCH] mfd: ucb1x00: remove NO_IRQ check

[Lee Jones]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> You need to send this _to_ me as I need to merge it with my other
> changes.  This patch on its own does not make sense - it only makes
> sense with the rest of my SA11x0 patch stack.
> 
> NAK for Lee to merge this.

So if I were to accept this patch, would anything break?  In other
words, is there an ordering issue where this this change relies on
something you have in your tree?

> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:03:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > probe_irq_off() returns '0' on failure, not NO_IRQ, so the check
> > in this driver is clearly wrong. This replaces it with the
> > regular '!irq' check used in other drivers.
> > 
> > The sa1100 platform that this driver is used on originally numbered
> > all its interrupts starting at '0', which would have conflicted with
> > this change, but as of commit 18f3aec ("ARM: 8230/1: sa1100: shift
> > IRQs by one"), this is not a problem any more.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c b/drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c
> > index 48bea5038654..d6fb2e1a759a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/ucb1x00-core.c
> > @@ -537,7 +537,7 @@ static int ucb1x00_probe(struct mcp *mcp)
> >  	ucb1x00_enable(ucb);
> >  	ucb->irq = ucb1x00_detect_irq(ucb);
> >  	ucb1x00_disable(ucb);
> > -	if (ucb->irq == NO_IRQ) {
> > +	if (!ucb->irq) {
> >  		dev_err(&ucb->dev, "IRQ probe failed\n");
> >  		ret = -ENODEV;
> >  		goto err_no_irq;
> 

-- 
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org â Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog