From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] serial/8250_dw: use platform_get_irq() instead of platform_get_resource() Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 17:43:47 +0200 Message-ID: <1425397427.14897.149.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <1425395474-6762-1-git-send-email-abrodkin@synopsys.com> <1425396362.14897.143.camel@linux.intel.com> <1425396820.17965.16.camel@synopsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1425396820.17965.16.camel@synopsys.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alexey Brodkin Cc: "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com" , "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" , "alan@linux.intel.com" List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 15:33 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Hi Andy, > > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 17:26 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 18:11 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > > > It is not recommened to use platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ) > > > for requesting IRQ's resources any more, as they can be not ready yet in > > > case of DT-booting. > > > > > > platform_get_irq() instead is a recommended way for getting IRQ even if > > > it was not retrieved earlier. > > > > > > It also makes code simpler because we're getting "int" value right away > > > and no conversion from resource to int is required. > > > > > > Changes in v2: > > > * Suppress error message if platform_get_irq() returns -EPROBE_DEFER > > > > Do we really need that message at all? > > IMHO it makes sense. > > For example it was useful for me when debugging stacked interrupt > controllers setup - I got explicitly notified why this particular device > failed on probe. There are so many device drivers which prints similar message that you would consider to make a separate patch to platform.c code to do that stuff there once for all. > Note that IRQ is a pretty specific resource due to the fact of INTC > stacking and situations when each and every INTC gets finally probed. > > Still if you believe we may drop this message with no loss of usability > - I'm fine with that as well. If no one else has an objection I would prefer to skip it. You always may get the return code from probe(), though it's not exactly mapped to the reason why it failed. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy