Re: [PATCH -next] remoteproc: stm32: Clean up redundant dev_err_probe()

["chenjiahao (C)" <chenjiahao16@huawei.com>]

On 2023/8/16 20:46, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 8/2/23 11:51, Chen Jiahao wrote:
>> Referring to platform_get_irq()'s definition, the return value has
>> already been checked if ret < 0, and printed via dev_err_probe().
>> Calling dev_err_probe() one more time outside platform_get_irq()
>> is obviously redundant.
>>
>> Removing dev_err_probe() outside platform_get_irq() to clean up
>> above problem.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chen Jiahao <chenjiahao16@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>> index 98234b44f038..a09eeb83ea5c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>> @@ -714,7 +714,7 @@ static int stm32_rproc_parse_dt(struct platform_device *pdev,
>>   
>>   	irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>   	if (irq == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> -		return dev_err_probe(dev, irq, "failed to get interrupt\n");
>> +		return irq;
> The IRQ is optional so using platform_get_irq_optional seems a better option to me.
>
> -  	irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> +  	irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);

Hi,

Thanks for your reminding.

It seems that platform_get_irq is nothing more than platform_get_irq_optional,
except wrapping a dev_err_probe for error code checking. So using the former
one should also be OK.

Or have I missed anywhere else?

Best Regards,
Jiahao

>>   	if (irq == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> 		return dev_err_probe(dev, irq, "failed to get interrupt\n");
> Thanks,
> Arnaud
>
>>   
>>   	if (irq > 0) {
>>   		err = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, stm32_rproc_wdg, 0,