Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform: make platform_get_irq_optional() optional

Uwe Kleine-König
2022-01-10T21:46:33Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3096 bytes --]

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 11:07:03PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 09:10:14PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:54:48PM +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> > > This patch is based on the former Andy Shevchenko's patch:
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210331144526.19439-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/
> > >
> > > Currently platform_get_irq_optional() returns an error code even if IRQ
> > > resource simply has not been found. It prevents the callers from being
> > > error code agnostic in their error handling:
> > >
> > > ret = platform_get_irq_optional(...);
> > > if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENXIO)
> > > return ret; // respect deferred probe
> > > if (ret > 0)
> > > ...we get an IRQ...
> > >
> > > All other *_optional() APIs seem to return 0 or NULL in case an optional
> > > resource is not available. Let's follow this good example, so that the
> > > callers would look like:
> > >
> > > ret = platform_get_irq_optional(...);
> > > if (ret < 0)
> > > return ret;
> > > if (ret > 0)
> > > ...we get an IRQ...
> >
> > The difference to gpiod_get_optional (and most other *_optional) is that
> > you can use the NULL value as if it were a valid GPIO.
>
> The problem is not only there, but also in the platform_get_irq() and that
> problem is called vIRQ0. Or as Linus put it "_cookie_" for IRQ, which never
> ever should be 0.

IMHO it's best to avoid yielding zero for a value that should be
interpreted as an (virtual) irq. Then callers don't even have to
consider if it's a valid value or not.

> > As this isn't given with for irqs, I don't think changing the return
> > value has much sense. In my eyes the problem with platform_get_irq() and
> > platform_get_irq_optional() is that someone considered it was a good
> > idea that a global function emits an error message. The problem is,
> > that's only true most of the time. (Sometimes the caller can handle an
> > error (here: the absence of an irq) just fine, sometimes the generic
> > error message just isn't as good as a message by the caller could be.
> > (here: The caller could emit "TX irq not found" which is a much nicer
> > message than "IRQ index 5 not found".)
> >
> > My suggestion would be to keep the return value of
> > platform_get_irq_optional() as is, but rename it to
> > platform_get_irq_silent() to get rid of the expectation invoked by the
> > naming similarity that motivated you to change
> > platform_get_irq_optional().
>
> This won't fix the issue with vIRQ0.

Is the patch about vIRQ0, or did you only start to consider it when I
said that for gpio NULL is a dummy value? If the former, the commit log
should better mention that.

Anyhow, I still think renaming platform_get_irq_optional() to
platform_get_irq_silent() is a good idea and the patches in this thread
are not.

Best regards
Uwe

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]