lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [1/5] i2c: i2c-davinci: switch to use platform_get_irq
On 11/21/2014 04:03 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Grygorii Strashko
> <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2014 11:48 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>>> Hello Grygorii,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 12:03:04PM +0200, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>> Switch Davinci I2C driver to use platform_get_irq(), because
>>>> - 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.
>>>> - it makes code simpler
>>>>
>>>> CC: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
>>>> CC: Kevin Hilman <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>
>>>> CC: Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@kernel.org>
>>>> CC: Murali Karicheri <m-karicheri2@ti.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c | 14 +++++++-------
>>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
>>>> index 4d96147..9bbfb8f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-davinci.c
>>>> @@ -640,13 +640,13 @@ static int davinci_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>> {
>>>> struct davinci_i2c_dev *dev;
>>>> struct i2c_adapter *adap;
>>>> - struct resource *mem, *irq;
>>>> - int r;
>>>> + struct resource *mem;
>>>> + int r, irq;
>>>>
>>>> - irq = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, 0);
>>>> - if (!irq) {
>>>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no irq resource?\n");
>>>> - return -ENODEV;
>>>> + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>> One bad thing about platform_get_irq is its unusual handling of irq=0.
>>> I'm pretty sure you don't want to use this value, so adding something
>>> like:
>>>
>>> if (!irq)
>>> irq = -ENXIO

I'll add this check in driver.

>>>
>>> would be welcome because the usual value for "invalid irq" is 0 and not
>>> -ESOMETHING. platform_get_irq is one of the very few functions that
>>> don't adhere to this convention. With handling <= 0 as error your code
>>> is immune to changes in this area. Although I notice that
>>> platform_get_irq got worse in this respect to handle -EPROBE_DEFER. hmm.
>>>
>>> Apart from your change I wonder if platform_get_irq should handle
>>> of_irq_get returning 0 as an error.
>>
>> I think you are right and It seems like, the check for !irq should
>> be added/restored for OF case in platform_get_irq() too.
>
> Changing the return values of platform_get_irq is tricky as it would
> potentially break drivers because NO_IRQ can be 0 or -1 depending on
> the arch. Drivers checking against specific values of NO_IRQ would
> break. We've done some clean-up in this area, but I suspect more is
> needed.

Thanks for your comment.

regards,
-grygorii
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-11-21 16:41    [W:0.047 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site