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

Mark Brown
2022-01-13T14:45:55Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1258 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:08:31PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> This is all very unfortunate. In my eyes b) is the most sensible
> sense, but the past showed that we don't agree here. (The most annoying
> part of regulator_get is the warning that is emitted that regularily
> makes customers ask what happens here and if this is fixable.)

Fortunately it can be fixed, and it's safer to clearly specify things.
The prints are there because when the description is wrong enough to
cause things to blow up we can fail to boot or run messily and
forgetting to describe some supplies (or typoing so they haven't done
that) and people were having a hard time figuring out what might've
happened.

> I think at least c) is easy to resolve because
> platform_get_irq_optional() isn't that old yet and mechanically
> replacing it by platform_get_irq_silent() should be easy and safe.
> And this is orthogonal to the discussion if -ENOXIO is a sensible return
> value and if it's as easy as it could be to work with errors on irq
> lookups.

It'd certainly be good to name anything that doesn't correspond to one
of the existing semantics for the API (!) something different rather
than adding yet another potentially overloaded meaning.

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