[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfoRs8b-jeoa3Q-cfjO3nKz7W1f-q72twH-isCQh6NeFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2022 18:04:19 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>
Cc: "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>,
Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amitk@...nel.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] thermal: rcar_thermal: Use platform_get_irq_optional()
to get the interrupt
On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 5:29 PM Niklas Söderlund
<niklas.soderlund@...natech.se> wrote:
> On 2022-01-05 19:25:25 +0000, Lad, Prabhakar wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 7:13 PM Niklas Söderlund
> > <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se> wrote:
> > > On 2022-01-04 14:52:11 +0000, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
...
> > > > + if (!irq || irq == -ENXIO)
> > > > + break;
> > >
> > > This do not look correct and differs form v1.
> > >
> > > In the old code if we can't get an IRQ the loop is continued. This is
> > > used to detect if interrupts are supported or not on the platform. This
> > > change will fail on all systems that don't describes interrupts in DT
> > > while the driver can function without interrupts.
> > >
> > There are no non-DT users for this driver. Do you see this driver
> > being used in a non-DT environment in near future?
>
> No, maybe I was unclear sorry about that. What I intended to say was
> that this change will break platforms that that make use of this driver
> but do not describe interrupts in its DT description. As with this
> change not describing interrupts is consider an error.
>
> For example checkout thermal@...48000 in arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7779.dtsi.
> > > Is there a reason you wish to do this change in addition to the switch
> > > to platform_get_irq_optional()? If so I think that should be done in a
> > > separate patch.
> > >
> > No other reason, It was suggested by Gerrt too to use a break instead
> > of continue in v1.
>
> I think we need to keep the original behavior.
I don't see how this can break those. Or are you stating that some of
them are using board files with 0 as a valid (v)IRQ?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists