On 12/05/2017 06:49 PM, David Miller wrote:Is it ok. If We will add a check for only < 0.
From: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@xxxxxxxxx>platform_get_irq() will return 0 only for sparc, If sparc initialize
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:18:20 +0530
@@ -120,9 +120,10 @@ static int sni_82596_probe(struct platform_deviceOk, thinking about this some more...
*dev)
netdevice->dev_addr[5] = readb(eth_addr + 0x06);
iounmap(eth_addr);
- if (!netdevice->irq) {
+ if (netdevice->irq <= 0) {
printk(KERN_ERR "%s: IRQ not found for i82596 at 0x%lx\n",
__FILE__, netdevice->base_addr);
+ retval = netdevice->irq ? netdevice->irq : -ENODEV;
goto probe_failed;
}
It is impossible to use platform_get_irq() without every single call
site having this funny:
ret = val ? val : -ENODEV;
sequence.
This is unnecessary duplication and it is also error prone, so I
really think this logic belongs in platform_get_irq() itself. It can
convert '0' to -ENODEV and that way we need no special logic in the
callers at all.
platform
data irq[PROMINTR_MAX] as zero. Otherwise platform_get_irq() will
never return
0. It will return either IRQ number or error (as negative number). But
I am getting
review comment by reviewer/maintainer in other subsystem to add check
for
zero. So I have done same changes here. Please correct me if i am
wrong.
If you make the change that I suggest, you instead can check for
I assume such change is needed only for the SPARC-specific section of platform_get_irq()?
'-ENODEV' to mean no IRQ.
No specific error check is needed, just irq < 0 check should be enough...
Also, looking at platform_get_irq(), -ENXIO should be returned in this case.
MBR, Sergei