So, maybe some words why I accepted this patch. On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 11:19:31AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 09:34:44PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Interrupt number 0 (returned by platform_get_irq()) might be a valid IRQ > > so do not treat it as an error. If interrupt 0 was configured, the driver > > would exit the probe early, before finishing initialization, but with > > 0-exit status. > > The official position (as stated by Linus) is that interrupt zero is > not a valid interrupt for peripheral drivers (it may be valid within > architecture code for things like the x86 PIT, but nothing else.)
I am aware of that situation and I totally agree with the reasoning. > You need to number your platform interrupts from one rather than zero. Ack. > Note that there have been patches proposed to make platform_get_irq() > return an error rather than returning a value of zero, so changing > the driver in this way is not a good idea. I'd much agree to such an approach, yet I didn't see it coming along so far for years(?) now. The reason I applied this patch is consistency with the current interface. The code is wrong with the way platform_get_irq right now works. This is independent of platform_get_irq should work, I thought. This needs to be fixed in a seperate series. This patch will not harm that transition.
Description: PGP signature