Re: [PATCH v3 6/7] iio: pressure: bmp280: Add data ready trigger support

Vasileios Amoiridis
2024-08-28T14:01:27Z

On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 01:23:56PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2024 at 02:02:22PM +0200, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 11:06:28PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 08:17:13PM +0200, Vasileios Amoiridis wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > > > +static int __bmp280_trigger_probe(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
> > > > + const struct iio_trigger_ops *trigger_ops,
> > > > + int (*int_config)(struct bmp280_data *data),
> > >
> > > > + irqreturn_t (*irq_thread_handler)(int irq, void *p))
> > >
> > > irq_handler_t
> >
> > But the function returns an irqreturn_t type, no?
>
> The type of the last parameter is irq_handler_t, no need to open code it.
>
> ...
>
> > > > + fwnode = dev_fwnode(data->dev);
> > > > + if (!fwnode)
> > > > + return -ENODEV;
> > >
> > > Why do you need this? The below will fail anyway.
> >
> > Because If I don't make this check then fwnode might be garbage and I will
> > pass garbage to the fwnode_irq_get() function. Or do I miss something?
>
> Yes, the function validates fwnode before use. So, please drop unneeded (or
> even duplicate) check.
>
> ...
>
> > > > + irq = fwnode_irq_get(fwnode, 0);
> > > > + if (!irq)
> > >
> > > Are you sure this is correct check?
> > >
> > Well, I think yes, because the function return either the Linux IRQ number
> > on success or a negative errno on failure.
>
> Where is 0 mentioned in this?
>
> > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10.6/source/drivers/base/property.c#L987
> >
> > > > + return dev_err_probe(data->dev, -ENODEV,
> > >
> > > Shadowed error code.
> >
> > I am not sure I understand what you mean here. You mean that there is no
> > chance that the first one will pass and this one will fail?
>
> -ENODEV is not what fwnode_irq_get() returns on error.
>
> > > > + "No interrupt found.\n");
>
> ...
>
> > > > + desc = irq_get_irq_data(irq);
> > > > + if (!desc)
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > When may this fail?
> >
> > I think that this will fail when Linux were not able to actually
> > register that interrupt.
>
> Wouldn't fwnode_irq_get() fail already?
>

Hi Andy,

By looking at it again, I didn't reply correct here. This function
internally calls the irq_to_desc() which basically returns the
irq desctiptor for this irq. This function can return NULL in
case the interrupt is not found in the maple tree (CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ)
or in case the interrupt number is bigger than the NR_IRQs which
the irq controller can handle (!CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ).

So in my opinion, it makes sense to keep this check.

Cheers,
Vasilis

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.10.6/source/kernel/irq/chip.c#L155

> ...
>
> > > if (ret)
> > > dev_err(data->dev, "Could not enable/disable interrupt\n");
>
> Btw you may use str_enable_disable() here.
>
> > > return ret;
> > >
> > > ?
> >
> > All the other if statements follow the style that I typed. If I
> > follow yours, will make it different just for this one, does it
> > make sense?
>
> When a comment is given, it's assumed that the _full_ patch (or patch series)
> should be revisited for it. Or should I add to every comment something like
> this:
>
> "Please, check the entire code for the same or similar case and amend
> accordingly."
>
> ?
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>