Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] platform: make platform_get_irq_optional() optional

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

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:13:51AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 11:16:30PM +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> > This patch is based on the former Andy Shevchenko's patch:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210331144526.19439-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/
> > 
> > Currently platform_get_irq_optional() returns an error code even if IRQ
> > resource simply has not been found.  It prevents the callers from being
> > error code agnostic in their error handling:
> > 
> > 	ret = platform_get_irq_optional(...);
> > 	if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENXIO)
> > 		return ret; // respect deferred probe
> > 	if (ret > 0)
> > 		...we get an IRQ...
> > 
> > All other *_optional() APIs seem to return 0 or NULL in case an optional
> > resource is not available.  Let's follow this good example, so that the
> > callers would look like:
> > 
> > 	ret = platform_get_irq_optional(...);
> > 	if (ret < 0)
> > 		return ret;
> > 	if (ret > 0)
> > 		...we get an IRQ...
> > 
> > Reported-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
> 
> While this patch is better than v1, I still don't like it for the
> reasons discussed for v1. (i.e. 0 isn't usable as a dummy value which I
> consider the real advantage for the other _get_optional() functions.)

I think you haven't reacted anyhow to my point that you mixing apples and
bananas together when comparing this 0 to the others _optional APIs.

> Apart from that, I think the subject is badly chosen. With "Make
> somefunc() optional" I would expect that you introduce a Kconfig symbol
> that results in the function not being available when disabled.


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko