There is a simple problem with the patch which is that an "IRQ 0" can and does
actually exist on a bunch of platforms, at least to the best of my knowledge.
Checking for -1 (which means for definite, no irq at all, because it is
totally unambiguous, as a -1 IRQ numbering is "impossible") is more correct.
The problem is the check against an unsigned value for interrupts (is there
any reason why you would need 4 billion interrupts possible instead of just
2 billion?) although I must say, the patch will work, and probably 99.9999999%
of people will never see a problem with it :)
--
Matt Sealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Genesi, Manager, Developer Relations
Anton Vorontsov wrote:
When no irq specified the pata_of_platform fills the irq_res with -1,
which is wrong to do for two reasons:
1. By definition, 'no irq' should be IRQ 0, not some negative integer;
2. pata_platform checks for irq_res.start > 0, but since irq_res.start
is unsigned type, the check will be true for `-1'.
Reported-by: Steven A. Falco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Resending again...
drivers/ata/pata_of_platform.c | 2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/ata/pata_of_platform.c b/drivers/ata/pata_of_platform.c
index 408da30..1f18ad9 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/pata_of_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/pata_of_platform.c
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static int __devinit pata_of_platform_probe(struct of_device
*ofdev,
ret = of_irq_to_resource(dn, 0, &irq_res);
if (ret == NO_IRQ)
- irq_res.start = irq_res.end = -1;
+ irq_res.start = irq_res.end = 0;
else
irq_res.flags = 0;
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
