Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform: make platform_get_irq_optional() optional

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 02:38:37PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > If an optional IRQ is not present, drivers either just ignore it (e.g.
> > for devices that can have multiple interrupts or a single muxed IRQ),
> > or they have to resort to polling. For the latter, fall-back handling
> > is needed elsewhere in the driver.
> > To me it sounds much more logical for the driver to check if an
> > optional irq is non-zero (available) or zero (not available), than to
> > sprinkle around checks for -ENXIO. In addition, you have to remember
> > that this one returns -ENXIO, while other APIs use -ENOENT or -ENOSYS
> > (or some other error code) to indicate absence. I thought not having
> > to care about the actual error code was the main reason behind the
> > introduction of the *_optional() APIs.
> 
> The *_optional() functions return an error code if there has been a
> real error which should be reported up the call stack. This excludes
> whatever error code indicates the requested resource does not exist,
> which can be -ENODEV etc. If the device does not exist, a magic cookie
> is returned which appears to be a valid resources but in fact is
> not. So the users of these functions just need to check for an error
> code, and fail the probe if present.
> 
> You seems to be suggesting in binary return value: non-zero
> (available) or zero (not available)


No, what is suggested is to (besides the API changes):
- do not treat ENXIO as something special in platform_get_irq*()
- allow platform_get_irq*() to return other error codes

> This discards the error code when something goes wrong. That is useful
> information to have, so we should not be discarding it.
> 
> IRQ don't currently have a magic cookie value. One option would be to
> add such a magic cookie to the subsystem. Otherwise, since 0 is
> invalid, return 0 to indicate the IRQ does not exist.
> 
> The request for a script checking this then makes sense. However, i
> don't know how well coccinelle/sparse can track values across function
> calls. They probably can check for:
> 
>    ret = irq_get_optional()
>    if (ret < 0)
>       return ret;
> 
> A missing if < 0 statement somewhere later is very likely to be an
> error. A comparison of <= 0 is also likely to be an error. A check for
> > 0 before calling any other IRQ functions would be good. I'm
> surprised such a check does not already existing in the IRQ API, but
> there are probably historical reasons for that.
> 
>       Andrew

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko