On Thu, 17 Sep 2015, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 09/17/2015 11:28 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:
> > > I think the NO_IRQ definition is missing for ARM64.
> >
> > Yep, Maybe better to compatible if we don't use the 'NO_IRQ',
>
> Hmm, after digging into drivers/of/irq.c and kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>
> when there is an error it returns zero. So NO_IRQ and -1 are not correct and
> on the other side zero can be a valid irq. That sounds a little bit fuzzy to
> me.
IRQ0 is invalid for historical reasons. End of story.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
