Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] drivers: fwnode: fix fwnode_irq_get_byname()

[Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>]

Hi Jonathan,

It was somewhat busy "Mother's day" weekend for me but now I'm back in 
the business :)

On 5/13/23 21:40, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 12 May 2023 10:53:00 +0300
> Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> The fwnode_irq_get_byname() does return 0 upon device-tree IRQ mapping
>> failure. This is contradicting the function documentation and can
>> potentially be a source of errors like:
>>
>> int probe(...) {
>> 	...
>>
>> 	irq = fwnode_irq_get_byname();
>> 	if (irq <= 0)
>> 		return irq;
>>
>> 	...
>> }
>>
>> Here we do correctly check the return value from fwnode_irq_get_byname()
>> but the driver probe will now return success. (There was already one
>> such user in-tree).
>>
>> Change the fwnode_irq_get_byname() to work as documented and according to
>> the common convention and abd always return a negative errno upon failure.
>>
>> Fixes: ca0acb511c21 ("device property: Add fwnode_irq_get_byname")
>> Suggested-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Matti Vaittinen <mazziesaccount@gmail.com>
> 
> Whilst the docs don't contradict behaviour for fwnode_irq_get()
> unlike the byname() variant, it does seem odd to fix it only in this
> version rather than modifying them both not to return 0.

I think you're right. I think I overlooked this because the whole thing 
started as a documentation fix :)

> Is there clear logic why they should be different?

Not that I know of. I'll re-spin this with fwnode_irq_get() modified if 
no-one objects. Thanks for pointing this out!

Yours,
	-- Matti

-- 
Matti Vaittinen
Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors
Oulu Finland

~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~