From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753528AbbD2KC7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 06:02:59 -0400
Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:61670 "EHLO mga01.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751827AbbD2KC5 (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 29 Apr 2015 06:02:57 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,670,1422950400"; 
   d="scan'208";a="717662469"
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:02:49 +0300
From: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
        Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@intel.com>,
        Robert Dolca <robert.dolca@intel.com>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] i2c / ACPI: Assign IRQ for devices that have GpioInt
 automatically
Message-ID: <20150429100249.GR1534@lahna.fi.intel.com>
References: <1430233507-29389-1-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <1430233507-29389-3-git-send-email-mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
 <20150429095605.GA2470@katana>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150429095605.GA2470@katana>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:56:06AM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 
> > -	if (!client->irq && dev->of_node) {
> > -		int irq = of_irq_get(dev->of_node, 0);
> > +	if (client->irq <= 0) {
> > +		int irq = -ENOENT;
> 
> Why the move from !client->irq to <= 0? If I didn't miss something,
> interrupt numbers are still a sleeping dog with all the unsigned vs
> signed fuzz. If this change is needed, this needs proper description and
> ideally a seperate patch.

It is there because ACPI parts of I2C client enumeration code
initializes client->irq with -1. Alternatively we can change that code
to use 0 for missing IRQ.