[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5da7a675.1c69fb81.a888.0911@mx.google.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:23:32 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: unittest: Use platform_get_irq_optional() for non-existing interrupt
Quoting Geert Uytterhoeven (2019-10-16 07:31:42)
> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> index 9efae29722588a35..34da22f8b0660989 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> @@ -1121,7 +1121,7 @@ static void __init of_unittest_platform_populate(void)
> np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/testcase-device2");
> pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> unittest(pdev, "device 2 creation failed\n");
> - irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> + irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
> unittest(irq < 0 && irq != -EPROBE_DEFER,
This is a test to make sure that irq failure doesn't return probe defer.
Do we want to silence the error message that we're expecting to see?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists