Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] ata: libahci_platform: Get rid of dup message when IRQ can't be retrieved | From | Sergey Shtylyov <> | Date | Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:38:40 +0300 |
| |
On 12/10/21 11:47 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> platform_get_irq() will print a message when it fails. >>> No need to repeat this. >>> >>> While at it, drop redundant check for 0 as platform_get_irq() spills >>> out a big WARN() in such case. >> >> The reason you should be able to remove the "if (!irq)" test is that >> platform_get_irq() never returns 0. At least, that is what the function kdoc >> says. But looking at platform_get_irq_optional(), which is called by >> platform_get_irq(), the out label is: >> >> WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n"); >> return ret; >> >> So 0 will be returned as-is. That is rather weird. That should be fixed to >> return -ENXIO: >> >> if (WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n")) >> return -ENXIO;
-ENXIO seems to me more fitting indeed (than -EINVAL that I used).
> > No, this is wrong for the same reasons I explained to Sergey.
I fail to understand you, sorry. We're going in circles, it seems... :-/
> The problem is that this is _optional API and it has been misdesigned. > Replacing things like above will increase the mess.
What's wrong with replacing IRQ0 with -ENXIO now? platform_get_irq_optional() (as in your patch) could then happily return 0 ISO -ENXIO. Contrarywise, if we don't replace IRQ0 with -ENXIO, platform_get_irq_optional() will return 0 for both IRQ0 and missing IRQ! Am I clear enough? If you don't understand me now, I don't know what to say... :-/
> >> return ret; >> >> Otherwise, I do not think that removing the "if (!irq)" hunk is safe. no ? > > No. This is not a business of the caller to workaround implementation > details (bugs) of the core APIs. > If something goes wrong, then it's platform_get_irq() to blame, and > not the libahci_platform.
I'm repeating myself already: we don't work around the bug in platform_get_irq(), we're working around the driver subsystems that treat 0 specially (and so don't support IRQ0); libata treats 0 as an indication of the polling mode (moreover, it will curse if you pass to it both IRQ == 0 and a pointer to an interrupt handler! Am I clear enough this time? :-)
MBR, Sergey
|  |