Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Jun 2021 11:04:19 +0800 | From | Zhongjun Tan <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: ipa: Remove superfluous error message around platform_get_irq() |
| |
On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 16:38:43 -0500 Alex Elder <elder@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 6/10/21 4:11 PM, David Miller wrote: > > From: Zhongjun Tan <hbut_tan@163.com> > > Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:01:18 +0800 > > > >> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c > >> b/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c index 34b68dc43886..93270e50b6b3 > >> 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c > >> +++ b/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c > >> @@ -177,11 +177,8 @@ static int ipa_smp2p_irq_init(struct > >> ipa_smp2p *smp2p, const char *name, int ret; > >> > >> ret = platform_get_irq_byname(smp2p->ipa->pdev, name); > >> - if (ret <= 0) { > >> - dev_err(dev, "DT error %d getting \"%s\" IRQ > >> property\n", > >> - ret, name); > >> + if (ret <= 0) > > Applied, but this code still rejects an irq of zero which is a > > valid irq number. > > It rejects IRQ 0 intentionally. And if 0 is returned, there > will now be no message printed by the platform code. > > As I recall, I looked for a *long* time to see whether IRQ 0 > was a valid IRQ number in Linux. One reason I even questioned > it is that NO_IRQ is defined with value 0 on some architectures > (though not for Arm). I even asked Rob Herring about privately > it a few years back and he suggested I shouldn't allow 0. > > Yes, it *looked* like IRQ 0 could be a valid return. But I > decided it was safer to just reject it, on the assumption > that it's unlikely to be returned (I don't believe it is > or ever will be used as the IRQ for SMP2P). > > If you are certain it's valid, and should be allowed, I > have no objection to changing that "<=" to be "<". > > -Alex > > PS A quick search found this oldie: > https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/no_irq.html
I think so , It is better to change "<=" to be "<".
| |