On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 10:12 PM, John Williams
<john.willi...@petalogix.com> wrote:
> 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?
I've still got the patch in my private queue. I can reapply it, test
it and repost it. I think what was still a bit up in the air was the
exact method to map hw irq numbers onto linux irqs.
g.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
