Re: [PATCH V2] ath9k: Use platform_get_irq() to get the interrupt

[Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org>]

cgel.zte@gmail.com writes:

> From: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn>
>
> It is not recommened to use platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ)
> for requesting IRQ's resources any more, as they can be not ready yet in
> case of DT-booting.
>
> platform_get_irq() instead is a recommended way for getting IRQ even if
> it was not retrieved earlier.
>
> It also makes code simpler because we're getting "int" value right away
> and no conversion from resource to int is required.
>
> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <zealci@zte.com.cn>
> Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi <chi.minghao@zte.com.cn>
> ---
> v1->v2:
>   - Retain dev_err() call on failure
>
>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c | 8 +++-----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c
> index cdefb8e2daf1..28c45002c115 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c
> @@ -98,14 +98,12 @@ static int ath_ahb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		return -ENOMEM;
>  	}
>  
> -	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, 0);
> -	if (res == NULL) {
> +	irq = platform_get_resource(pdev, 0);

Is this really correct? Should it be platform_get_irq()?

Do you compile test your patches? That's mandatory.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches