[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c80a1b5d-c577-4216-9ebb-00a4cecbdde1@vivo.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 11:07:56 +0800
From: PanChuang <panchuang@...o.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
Cc: kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
miquel.raynal@...tlin.com, Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com,
u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de, angeg.delregno@...labora.com,
krzk@...nel.org, a.fatoum@...gutronix.de, frank.li@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 1/1] genirq/devres: Add dev_err_probe() in
devm_request_threaded_irq() and devm_request_any_context_irq()
Hi, tglx
在 2025/7/31 1:27, Thomas Gleixner 写道:
>> From my PoV, it would look more logical to have the same logic in
>> devm_request_threaded_irq() and in devm_request_any_context_irq().
> As they print the same thing the right thing to do is:
>
> int rc = __devm_request_any_context_irq(....);
>
> return devm_request_result(dev, rc, irq, handler, NULL, devname);
>
> and in devm_request_threaded_irq() invoke it with:
>
> return devm_request_result(dev, rc, irq, handler, thread_fn, devname);
>
> and let that function return rc if (rc >= 0), which handles both cases.
Could you please confirm if this implementation aligns with your vision?
I'm happy to refine it further based on your guidance.
> int rc = __devm_request_any_context_irq(dev, irq, handler,
irqflags,
> devname, dev_id);
>- if (rc < 0) {
>- return dev_err_probe(dev, rc, "request_irq(%u) %ps %s\n",
>- irq, handler, devname ? : "");
>- }
>+ if (rc >= 0)
>+ return rc;
>
>- return rc;
>+ return dev_err_probe(dev, rc, "request_irq(%u) %ps %s\n",
>+ irq, handler, devname ? : "");
>}
Thanks,
Pan Chuang
Powered by blists - more mailing lists