Re: [RFC PATCH v2 05/21] pnp.h: Return -EPROBE_DEFER for disabled IRQ resource in pnp_irq()

[Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2024 at 07:00:51PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 10:24 PM Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com> wrote:
> >
> > To support deferred PNP driver probe, pnp_irq() must return -EPROBE_DEFER
> > so that the device driver can do deferred probe if the interrupt controller
> > is not probed early.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
> > ---
> >  include/linux/pnp.h | 10 ++++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/pnp.h b/include/linux/pnp.h
> > index c2a7cfbca713..21cf833789fb 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/pnp.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/pnp.h
> > @@ -147,12 +147,18 @@ static inline resource_size_t pnp_mem_len(struct pnp_dev *dev,
> >  }
> >
> >
> > -static inline resource_size_t pnp_irq(struct pnp_dev *dev, unsigned int bar)
> > +static inline int pnp_irq(struct pnp_dev *dev, unsigned int bar)
> >  {
> >         struct resource *res = pnp_get_resource(dev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, bar);
> >
> > -       if (pnp_resource_valid(res))
> > +       if (pnp_resource_valid(res)) {
> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ACPI_DEFERRED_GSI)
> > +               if (!pnp_resource_enabled(res))
> > +                       return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > +#endif
> 
> What would be wrong with
> 
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_ACPI_DEFERRED_GSI) && !pnp_resource_enabled(res))
>         return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> 
> ?
Hi Rafael,

Actually, this is v2 version of the patch and there is recent v3. Please
take a look at [1] for the latest version.

However, your comment is still valid for v3. I will update as you
mentioned.

[1] - https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20231219174526.2235150-7-sunilvl@ventanamicro.com/

Thanks,
Sunil
> 
> > +
> >                 return res->start;
> > +       }
> >         return -1;
> >  }
> >
> > --
> > 2.39.2
> >