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

Sergey Shtylyov
2022-01-17T11:57:45Z

On 1/10/22 10:54 PM, 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...
>
> Reported-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@omp.ru>
[...]

Please don't merge this as yet, I'm going thru this patch once again
and have already found some sloppy code. :-/

> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c
> index 7450904e330a..fdc63bfa5be4 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c
> @@ -382,12 +382,14 @@ static int bt_bmc_config_irq(struct bt_bmc *bt_bmc,
> bt_bmc->irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
> if (bt_bmc->irq < 0)
> return bt_bmc->irq;
> + if (!bt_bmc->irq)
> + return 0;

Hm, this is sloppy. Will recast and rebase to the -next branch.

>
> rc = devm_request_irq(dev, bt_bmc->irq, bt_bmc_irq, IRQF_SHARED,
> DEVICE_NAME, bt_bmc);
> if (rc < 0) {
> dev_warn(dev, "Unable to request IRQ %d\n", bt_bmc->irq);
> - bt_bmc->irq = rc;
> + bt_bmc->irq = 0;

This change isn't needed...

> return rc;
> }
>
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/xgene_edac.c b/drivers/edac/xgene_edac.c
> index 2ccd1db5e98f..0d1bdd27cd78 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/xgene_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/xgene_edac.c
> @@ -1917,7 +1917,7 @@ static int xgene_edac_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) {
> irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, i);

Is *_optinal() even correct here?

> - if (irq < 0) {
> + if (irq <= 0) {
> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "No IRQ resource\n");
> rc = -EINVAL;
> goto out_err;
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> index f75929783b94..ac222985efde 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/brcmnand/brcmnand.c
> @@ -1521,7 +1521,7 @@ static irqreturn_t brcmnand_ctlrdy_irq(int irq, void *data)
>
> /* check if you need to piggy back on the ctrlrdy irq */
> if (ctrl->edu_pending) {
> - if (irq == ctrl->irq && ((int)ctrl->edu_irq >= 0))
> + if (irq == ctrl->irq && ((int)ctrl->edu_irq > 0))

Note to self: the cast to *int* isn't needed, the edu_irq field is *int* already...

[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/power/supply/mp2629_charger.c b/drivers/power/supply/mp2629_charger.c
> index bdf924b73e47..51289700a7ac 100644
> --- a/drivers/power/supply/mp2629_charger.c
> +++ b/drivers/power/supply/mp2629_charger.c
> @@ -581,9 +581,9 @@ static int mp2629_charger_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> platform_set_drvdata(pdev, charger);
>
> irq = platform_get_irq_optional(to_platform_device(dev->parent), 0);

Again, is *_optional() even correct here?

> - if (irq < 0) {
> + if (irq <= 0) {
> dev_err(dev, "get irq fail: %d\n", irq);
> - return irq;
> + return irq < 0 ? irq : -ENXIO;
> }
>
> for (i = 0; i < MP2629_MAX_FIELD; i++) {
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/rcar_gen3_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/rcar_gen3_thermal.c
> index 43eb25b167bc..776cfed4339c 100644
> --- a/drivers/thermal/rcar_gen3_thermal.c
> +++ b/drivers/thermal/rcar_gen3_thermal.c
> @@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ static int rcar_gen3_thermal_request_irqs(struct rcar_gen3_thermal_priv *priv,
>
> for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) {
> irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, i);
> - if (irq < 0)
> + if (irq <= 0)
> return irq;

Sloppy code again? We shouldn't return 0...

[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform.c b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform.c
> index 68a1c87066d7..cd7494933563 100644
> --- a/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform.c
> +++ b/drivers/vfio/platform/vfio_platform.c
> @@ -32,8 +32,12 @@ static struct resource *get_platform_resource(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev,
> static int get_platform_irq(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev, int i)
> {
> struct platform_device *pdev = (struct platform_device *) vdev->opaque;
> + int ret;
>
> - return platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, i);
> + ret = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, i);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + return ret > 0 ? ret : -ENXIO;

Could be expressed more concisely:

return ret ? : -ENXIO;

just like vfio_amba.c does it...

[...]

MBR, Sergey