linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] serial/8250_dw: use platform_get_irq() instead of platform_get

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 3 Mar 2015 15:47:37 +0000
From:	Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>
To:	"andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com" 
	<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
CC:	"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com" <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>,
	"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"alan@...ux.intel.com" <alan@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] serial/8250_dw: use platform_get_irq() instead of
 platform_get_resource()

Hi Andy,

On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 17:43 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 15:33 +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > Hi Andy,
> > 
> > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 17:26 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 18:11 +0300, Alexey Brodkin wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > > 
> > > > platform_get_irq() instead is a recommended way for getting IRQ even if
> > > > it was not retrieved earlier.
> > > > 
> > > > It also makes code simpler because we're getting "int" value right away
> > > > and no conversion from resource to int is required.
> > > > 
> > > >  Changes in v2:
> > > >   * Suppress error message if platform_get_irq() returns -EPROBE_DEFER
> > > 
> > > Do we really need that message at all?
> > 
> > IMHO it makes sense.
> > 
> > For example it was useful for me when debugging stacked interrupt
> > controllers setup - I got explicitly notified why this particular device
> > failed on probe.
> 
> There are so many device drivers which prints similar message that you
> would consider to make a separate patch to platform.c code to do that
> stuff there once for all.
> 
> > Note that IRQ is a pretty specific resource due to the fact of INTC
> > stacking and situations when each and every INTC gets finally probed.
> > 
> > Still if you believe we may drop this message with no loss of usability
> > - I'm fine with that as well.
> 
> If no one else has an objection I would prefer to skip it. You always
> may get the return code from probe(), though it's not exactly mapped to
> the reason why it failed.

Then we may want to do another massive clean-up because there're lots of
other drivers that have this message in some form :)

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