Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:59:19 +0200 | From | Grygorii Strashko <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |