Re: [PATCH] usb: Replace NO_IRQ by 0
From: Christophe Leroy
Date: Thu Oct 06 2022 - 10:02:05 EST
Le 06/10/2022 à 15:50, Alan Stern a écrit :
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 07:15:44AM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> NO_IRQ is used to check the return of irq_of_parse_and_map().
>>
>> On some architecture NO_IRQ is 0, on other architectures it is -1.
>>
>> irq_of_parse_and_map() returns 0 on error, independent of NO_IRQ.
>
> This isn't clear. Does absence of an irq count as an error? In other
> words, will irq_of_parse_and_map() sometimes return 0 and other times
> return NO_IRQ? What about architectures on which 0 is a valid irq
> number?
NO_IRQ doesn't exist anywhere in core functions. Only some drivers and
some architectures have relics of it.
irq_of_parse_and_map() will always return 0 on error.
0 can't be a valid logical IRQ number. It may only be a valid hwirq
number but it will always be translated to a non-zero logical irq number.
I'm trying to get rid of NO_IRQ completely in powerpc code, therefore
trying to clean-up all drivers used by powerpc architecture.
Long time ago Linus advocated for not using NO_IRQ, see
https://lkml.org/lkml/2005/11/21/221
Thanks
Christophe
>
>> So use 0 instead of using NO_IRQ.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/usb/host/ehci-ppc-of.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/usb/host/fhci-hcd.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/usb/host/ohci-ppc-of.c | 2 +-
>> drivers/usb/host/uhci-grlib.c | 2 +-
>> 5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
>> index a2c3b4ec8a8b..0717f2ccf49d 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
>> @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ static int ehci_hcd_grlib_probe(struct platform_device *op)
>> hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(&res);
>>
>> irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(dn, 0);
>> - if (irq == NO_IRQ) {
>> + if (!irq) {
>> dev_err(&op->dev, "%s: irq_of_parse_and_map failed\n",
>> __FILE__);
>> rv = -EBUSY;
>
> Since NO_IRQ is sometimes set to -1, shouldn't this test (and all the
> other ones you changed) really be doing:
>
> if (!irq || irq == NO_IRQ) { ...
>
> ?
>
> Alan Stern