From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753392AbbBSU2o (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:28:44 -0500 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:57307 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752061AbbBSU2n (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:28:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 15:28:41 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20150219.152841.891912250243016754.davem@davemloft.net> To: robert.jarzmik@free.fr Cc: linus.walleij@linaro.org, nico@fluxnic.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "smc91x: retrieve IRQ and trigger flags in a modern way" From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <87bnkx6bja.fsf@free.fr> References: <1423760350-20149-1-git-send-email-robert.jarzmik@free.fr> <87bnkx6bja.fsf@free.fr> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.1 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.7 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Thu, 19 Feb 2015 12:28:43 -0800 (PST) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Robert Jarzmik Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 17:06:49 +0100 > Linus Walleij writes: > >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Robert Jarzmik wrote: >> >> But isn't the real problem that in the device tree case, >> irq_get_irq_data(ndev->irq) will work becaus parsing an interrupt >> from the device tree populates it correctly in platform_get_irq() >> whereas for the legacy lookup it just fetches the number. >> >> So to me it seems like a weakness in the platform_get_irq() >> helper altogether. >> >> Does the following work? (I can send as a separate patch for >> testing if you like). > > Almost. If you replace : >> + if (r->flags & IORESOURCE_BITS) > with: >> + if (r && r->flags & IORESOURCE_BITS) > > Then you can push a patch with my: > Tested-by: Robert Jarzmik > > Now if you can make it in -rc2 or -rc3, this revert should be forgotten. But if > you can't make it for 3.20, I'll push for the revert. > > So I think it's up to you now, and let's see what Gregh says about it. What is the current status of this? I'd like to see this move forward so we can get this fixed ASAP. Thanks.