[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <154645307874.15366.9874268705850757907@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2019 10:17:58 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@...hat.com>,
linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] driver core: platform: Add an error message to platform_get_irq*()
Quoting Andy Shevchenko (2018-12-30 02:42:39)
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 11:56 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
> >
> > A grep of the kernel shows that many drivers print an error message if
> > they fail to get the irq they're looking for. Furthermore, those drivers
> > all decide to print the device name, or not, and the irq they were
> > requesting, or not, etc. Let's consolidate all these error messages into
> > the API itself, allowing us to get rid of the error messages in each
> > driver.
>
> > +static int __platform_get_irq(struct platform_device *dev, unsigned int num, bool warn)
> > {
>
> > +error:
> > + if (warn)
> > + dev_err(&dev->dev, "IRQ index %u not found\n", num);
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * platform_get_irq - get an IRQ for a device
> > + * @dev: platform device
> > + * @num: IRQ number index
> > + */
> > +int platform_get_irq(struct platform_device *dev, unsigned int num)
> > +{
> > + return __platform_get_irq(dev, num, true);
>
> Hmm... Why not just do
> int ret = __plaform_get_irq();
> if (ret)
> dev_err();
> return ret;
>
> instead of big refactoring of platform_get_irq()?
Sure. Thanks for the suggestion. But we need to check for ret < 0 I
suppose so that we don't print an error message for all the irq numbers.
I'll send the updated patch as a v3.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists