From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
To: Bui Duc Phuc <phucduc.bui@gmail.com>
Cc: Adrian Ng <adrianhoyin.ng@altera.com>,
Linus Walleij <linusw@kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@kernel.org>,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpio: realtek-otto: Handle errors from optional IRQ lookup
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2026 11:20:13 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <asIMPd-Kat3Zo978@ashevche-desk.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAABR9nEmXm2UwOWHDR2=A_62LuFxjgN4En=8Jcn2r_on0XmROA@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Oct 04, 2026 at 08:08:18AM +0700, Bui Duc Phuc wrote:
...
> Thank you for pointing me to the discussion.
> > Have you read the discussion [1]?
> > It would be better to make platform_get_irq_optional() to be actually optional.
> >
> > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20220212201631.12648-1-s.shtylyov@omp.ru/
>
> However, Regardless of how the API might be redesigned in the future
> to return 0
> or negative error codes, the fundamental requirement at the driver
> level remains
> the same: real errors must be propagated properly.
>
> This patch isn't concerned with the API style discussion, but rather
> with ensuring
> that driver probe doesn't silently swallow genuine errors like -EPROBE_DEFER.
> Proper error reporting is necessary under any reasonable API design.
Yes, but doing specific error handling is usually not a good idea as it adds
ambiguity. Like -EINVAL was used to check if the device property is present or
not at the time of trying to parse it. This was specifically clarified in the
documentation [2]. This is just an example of why the checking over a certain
error code is not good.
[2]: 70fa0c308aa2 ("device property: Document how to check for the property presence")
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-04 8:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-14 4:30 [PATCH 1/4] gpio: realtek-otto: Handle errors from optional IRQ lookup phucduc.bui
2026-08-14 4:30 ` [PATCH 2/4] gpio: mlxbf3: " phucduc.bui
2026-08-14 4:30 ` [PATCH 3/4] gpio: mlxbf2: " phucduc.bui
2026-08-14 4:30 ` [PATCH 4/4] gpio: altera: " phucduc.bui
2026-09-01 15:55 ` [PATCH 1/4] gpio: realtek-otto: " Bartosz Golaszewski
2026-09-14 11:56 ` Linus Walleij
2026-09-28 9:57 ` Andy Shevchenko
2026-10-04 1:08 ` Bui Duc Phuc
2026-10-04 8:20 ` Andy Shevchenko [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=asIMPd-Kat3Zo978@ashevche-desk.local \
--to=andriy.shevchenko@intel.com \
--cc=adrianhoyin.ng@altera.com \
--cc=brgl@kernel.org \
--cc=linusw@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=phucduc.bui@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.