On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:29 AM, John Linn <john.l...@xilinx.com> wrote:
> The code is not checking the interrupt for DMA correctly so that an
> interrupt number of 0 will cause a false error.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Hill <brian.h...@xilinx.com>
> Signed-off-by: John Linn <john.l...@xilinx.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ll_temac_main.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ll_temac_main.c b/drivers/net/ll_temac_main.c
> index fa7620e..0615737 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ll_temac_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ll_temac_main.c
> @@ -950,7 +950,7 @@ temac_of_probe(struct of_device *op, const struct
> of_device_id *match)
>
> lp->rx_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0);
> lp->tx_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 1);
> - if (!lp->rx_irq || !lp->tx_irq) {
> + if ((lp->rx_irq == NO_IRQ) || (lp->tx_irq == NO_IRQ)) {
Personally I think this is the right thing to do. But, I thought the
IRQ 0 == NO_IRQ (AKA "all-the-world's-an-x86-and-if-not-it-should-be")
holy war was already fought and won (or lost, depending on your
perspective)?
I seem to recall giving reluctant assent to a patch from Grant a few
months ago that touched MicroBlaze thus?
John
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
