Messages in this thread | | | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Mon, 27 Dec 2021 12:09:59 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] irqchip/renesas-irqc: Use platform_get_irq_optional() to get the interrupt |
| |
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 12:02 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 10:57 AM Andy Shevchenko > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:45 AM Geert Uytterhoeven > > <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 9:49 AM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 1:59 AM Lad, Prabhakar > > > > <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 5:40 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 7:28 PM Lad, Prabhakar > > > > > > <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 4:46 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > > > > > <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 9:52 AM Lad Prabhakar > > > > > > > > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ret = platform_get_irq_optional(...); > > > > > > > > if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENXIO) > > > > > > > > return ret; > > > > > > > > if (ret > 0) > > > > > > > > ...we got it... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It will allow the future API fix of platform_get_irq_optional() to be > > > > > > > > really optional. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Later patch [0] (merged into -next) does check for -ENXIO first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211216182121.5323-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com/t/ > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem is that it doesn't consider 0 as no IRQ. > > > > > > > > > > > Can you please point me to the discussion/patch where this API change > > > > > is considered/discussed. Just to clarify now the new API for > > > > > platform_get_irq_optional() will return "0" in case there is no > > > > > interrupt and not not -ENXIO anymore? > > > > > > > > The longest one happened here: > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/20211209145937.77719-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com/T/#u > > > > > > > > It has links to some other discussions on the topic. > > > > > > > > > When will this patch be merged for the new api, so that I can base my > > > > > patches on top of it to avoid more changes? > > > > > > > > You can simply imply that, I dunno when it gets merged (from my point > > > > of view the users should be fixed first, and since you are adding > > > > users, the burden is increasing). > > > > > > Not only users (drivers), but also providers (architecture-specific code). > > > IRQ zero is still valid on some architectures, e.g. on SH[1]. > > > > Are we talking about vIRQ? > > And users are fine with a big warning? > > The warning is only seen when a driver uses platorm_get_irq{,_optional}(). > There are several other ways to obtain interrupts, avoiding the > big warning.
Forgot to comment on this, then why is it a problem to allow platfiorm_get_irq_optional() use 0 for no IRQ? So, it seems you gave me a good justification for my way :-)
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |