linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] of: unittest: Use platform_get_irq

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]

Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXnTOaM+4SUkzpYXNeFbJtaG_kRzFLJRhVPCVNcOUB0qA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 08:59:26 +0200
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: unittest: Use platform_get_irq_optional() for
 non-existing interrupt

Hi Stephen,

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:23 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org> wrote:
> 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?

I think so.  We're not interested in error messages for expected failures,
only in error messages for unittest() failures.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds