[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <29f0c65d-77f2-e5b2-f6cc-422add8a707d@omp.ru>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 23:35:34 +0300
From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
CC: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
<linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
"Amit Kucheria" <amitk@...nel.org>,
ALSA Development Mailing List <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>,
Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
MTD Maling List <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux I2C <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
<linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
<openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"Khuong Dinh" <khuong@...amperecomputing.com>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@...tq-group.com>,
Kamal Dasu <kdasu.kdev@...il.com>,
"Lee Jones" <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>,
"Daniel Lezcano" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com>,
"open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Saravanan Sekar <sravanhome@...il.com>,
Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
"John Garry" <john.garry@...wei.com>,
Peter Korsgaard <peter@...sgaard.com>,
"William Breathitt Gray" <vilhelm.gray@...il.com>,
Mark Gross <markgross@...nel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"Sebastian Reichel" <sre@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"Takashi Iwai" <tiwai@...e.com>,
<platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org>,
Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Mun Yew Tham <mun.yew.tham@...el.com>,
Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
"Linux MMC List" <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"James Morse" <james.morse@....com>,
Zha Qipeng <qipeng.zha@...el.com>,
"Pengutronix Kernel Team" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>,
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform: make platform_get_irq_optional() optional
On 1/13/22 12:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
[...]
> (Do we really need *all* the CCs here?)
Yeah, 25 files were changed and that resulted in 75 persons/lists addressed.
I didn't expect such a wide audience myself... :-)
>> That convinces me, that platform_get_irq_optional() is a bad name. The
>> only difference to platform_get_irq is that it's silent. And returning
>> a dummy irq value (which would make it aligned with the other _optional
>> functions) isn't possible.
> There is regulator_get_optional() which is I believe the earliest of
> these APIs, it doesn't return a dummy either (and is silent too) - this
Hm, I'm seeing it's rather noisy... :-)
> is because regulator_get() does return a dummy since it's the vastly
> common case that regulators must be physically present and them not
> being found is due to there being an error in the system description.
> It's unfortunate that we've ended up with these two different senses for
> _optional(), people frequently get tripped up by it.
>
>>> To me it sounds much more logical for the driver to check if an
>>> optional irq is non-zero (available) or zero (not available), than to
>>> sprinkle around checks for -ENXIO. In addition, you have to remember
>>> that this one returns -ENXIO, while other APIs use -ENOENT or -ENOSYS
>>> (or some other error code) to indicate absence. I thought not having
>>> to care about the actual error code was the main reason behind the
>>> introduction of the *_optional() APIs.
>
>> No, the main benefit of gpiod_get_optional() (and clk_get_optional()) is
>> that you can handle an absent GPIO (or clk) as if it were available.
Hm, I've just looked at these and must note that they match 1:1 with
platform_get_irq_optional(). Unfortunately, we can't however behave the
same way in request_irq() -- because it has to support IRQ0 for the sake
of i8253 drivers in arch/...
> Similarly for the regulator API, kind of.
MBR, Sergey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists