On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.bell...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On 03/06/2015 at 00:34:11 +0300, Octavian Purdila wrote :
>> This fixes an issue introduces by commit dab472eb931b ("i2c / ACPI:
>> Use 0 to indicate that device does not have interrupt assigned") where
>> drivers will try to request IRQ 0 when no GpioInt is defined in ACPI.
>>
>> The same issue occurs when the device is instantiated via device tree
>> with no IRQ, or from the i2c sysfs interface, even before the patch
>> above.
>>
>> Linus, since the commit above was already merged in the GPIO tree,
>> should these fixes be merged also via the GPIO tree (with ACKs from
>> the others subsystem maintainers)?
>>
>
> Side question, has it been considered that IRQ 0 is valid on some
> platform and that means i2c devices will not be able to be wired to that
> IRQ anymore? Though, I don't think there are any existing design that
> does so.
>Device tree instantiation does not allow you to used IRQ 0 anyway. And here is what Linus said about this: http://yarchive.net/comp/linux/no_irq.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
