[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJVSe9crFabywAdeEWWRYmCW9cE2tRcKBb7eyfKuPV9RXw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 11:03:13 +0100
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>,
"rjui@...adcom.com" <rjui@...adcom.com>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"sbranden@...adcom.com" <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
"thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
"bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com"
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] gpio: bcm-kona: use platform_irq_count
śr., 11 gru 2019 o 10:49 Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> napisał(a):
>
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > śr., 4 gru 2019 o 11:09 Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:24:39AM +0000, Peng Fan wrote:
> > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > > >
> > > > platform_irq_count() is the more generic way (independent of
> > > > device trees) to determine the count of available interrupts. So
> > > > use this instead.
> > > >
> > > > As platform_irq_count() might return an error code (which
> > > > of_irq_count doesn't) some additional handling is necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > V3:
> > > > Use %pe
> > >
> > > Great. Note that with %pe there is a dependency on commit 57f5677e535b
> > > ("printf: add support for printing symbolic error names") which was
> > > applied during the current merge window.
> > >
> >
> > Why would %pe be better in this case? The function returned an int -
> > why convert it to a pointer?
>
> The conversion to a pointer is (currently still) needed, because there
> is no printk facility (yet) that consumes an int error pointer and
> results in the respecting code.
>
> Somewhere on my todo-list is an item to fix that, but we're not there
> yet and so the best option is to use %pe.
>
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of this new format modifier.
Both applied.
Bartosz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists