[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZrSHTry1fmFbrAAwbVu_zi1oez-uD5-8RtOVL_H54O+w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 23:45:21 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
Cc: Aman Sharma <amanharitsh123@...il.com>,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Andrew Murray <amurray@...goodpenguin.co.uk>,
Ryder Lee <ryder.lee@...iatek.com>,
Karthikeyan Mitran <m.karthikeyan@...iveil.co.in>,
Hou Zhiqiang <Zhiqiang.Hou@....com>,
Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>,
Mans Rullgard <mans@...sr.com>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support"
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] pci: handled return value of platform_get_irq correctly
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 8:02 PM Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org> wrote:
> IIUC, in the link you mentioned, Linus T says that "dev->irq == 0"
> means we don't have a valid IRQ. I think that makes sense, but I'm
> not sure it follows that 0 must be a sensical return value for
> platform_get_irq(). It seems to me that platform_get_irq() ought to
> return either a valid IRQ or an error, and the convention for errors
> is a negative errno.
OK I see your point.
I would be fine of the code is changed from:
if (irq <= 0)
error;
To:
if (irq < 0)
error retrieving IRQ
if (!irq)
error driver requires a valid IRQ
To the driver (this one in specific) the IRQ is expected and
necessary and I think it holds for most PCI hosts.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists