On 2/19/08, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > i2c->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > - if (i2c->irq < 0) {
> > + if (i2c->irq < NO_IRQ) {
>
>
> I am skeptical about this one. Can platform_get_irq() really return
> NO_IRQ? I thought that the IRQ resource would be plain missing if the
> device has no IRQ, so I would expect:
>
>
> i2c->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> if (i2c->irq < 0)
>
> i2c->irq = NO_IRQ; /* Use polling */
>
> Testing against NO_IRQ suggests that devices with no IRQ would still
> have an IRQ resource defined and explicitly set to NO_IRQ. Sounds weird
> to me. Can you please clarify this point?
Your fix is correct. I'm not sure polling worked in the original driver.
> For what it's worth, no other kernel driver checks for irq < NO_IRQ.
> They all check for irq < 0 after calling platform_get_irq().
>
>
> > result = -ENXIO;
> > goto fail_get_irq;
> > }
> > @@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > goto fail_map;
> > }
> >
> > - if (i2c->irq != 0)
> > + if (i2c->irq != NO_IRQ)
> > if ((result = request_irq(i2c->irq, mpc_i2c_isr,
> > IRQF_SHARED, "i2c-mpc", i2c)) < 0)
> {
> > printk(KERN_ERR
> > @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > return result;
> >
> > fail_add:
> > - if (i2c->irq != 0)
> > + if (i2c->irq != NO_IRQ)
> > free_irq(i2c->irq, i2c);
> > fail_irq:
> > iounmap(i2c->base);
> > @@ -384,7 +384,7 @@ static int fsl_i2c_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > i2c_del_adapter(&i2c->adap);
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
> >
> > - if (i2c->irq != 0)
> > + if (i2c->irq != NO_IRQ)
> > free_irq(i2c->irq, i2c);
> >
> > iounmap(i2c->base);
>
>
> The rest looks good.
>
> --
>
> Jean Delvare
>
--
Jon Smirl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
