[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200523170933.GA16771@nuc8i5>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 01:09:33 +0800
From: Dejin Zheng <zhengdejin5@...il.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...nel.org>
Cc: gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, rafael@...nel.org,
f.fainelli@...il.com, rjui@...adcom.com, sbranden@...adcom.com,
michal.simek@...inx.com, baruch@...s.co.il, paul@...pouillou.net,
khilman@...libre.com, shawnguo@...nel.org, festevam@...il.com,
vz@...ia.com, heiko@...ech.de, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
baohua@...nel.org, ardb@...nel.org, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] drivers: provide devm_platform_request_irq()
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 06:08:29PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:51:55PM +0800, Dejin Zheng wrote:
> > It will call devm_request_irq() after platform_get_irq() function
> > in many drivers, sometimes, it is not right for the error handling
> > of these two functions in some drivers. so provide this function
> > to simplify the driver.
> >
> > the first patch will provide devm_platform_request_irq(), and the
> > other patch will convert to devm_platform_request_irq() in some
> > i2c bus dirver.
> >
> > v1 -> v2:
> > - I give up this series of patches in v1 version. I resend this
> > patches v2 by that discussion:
> > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/patch/20200520144821.8069-1-zhengdejin5@gmail.com/
> > The patch content has not changed.
>
> I don't understand. v1 has been nacked because of technical reasons. How
> did the discussion above change the situation? Am I missing something?
>
No, you are not missing something. Maybe I did not explain clearly.
The v1 has been nacked because Grygorii told me that the
function platform_get_irq() should be done as early as possible to avoid
unnecessary initialization steps, and the function devm_request_irq()
should be done late in probe when driver and HW are actually ready to
handle IRQs. It can do the other things between the two funtions. I agree
with him that it may be necessary in some complex drives. So abandon the
patch v1.
Base on the discussion of you and Michal, I think maybe this patch is also
needed for the simple driver or the driver of already use it like that:
irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
if (irq < 0)
return irq;
ret = devm_request_irq()
It provides a common error handling and reduce one function call for each
drivers, more easier to use and simplify code. So resend it.
BR,
Dejin
> >
> > Dejin Zheng (2):
> > drivers: provide devm_platform_request_irq()
> > i2c: busses: convert to devm_platform_request_irq()
> >
> > drivers/base/platform.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-kona.c | 16 +++------------
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cadence.c | 10 +++------
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-digicolor.c | 10 +++------
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-emev2.c | 5 ++---
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-jz4780.c | 5 ++---
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-meson.c | 13 ++++--------
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mxs.c | 9 +++-----
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-pnx.c | 9 ++------
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c | 9 +++-----
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rk3x.c | 14 +++----------
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sirf.c | 10 ++-------
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c | 4 ++--
> > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-synquacer.c | 12 +++--------
> > include/linux/platform_device.h | 4 ++++
> > 15 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.25.0
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists