Message-ID: <CAMuHMdWkwV9XE_R5FZ=jPtDwLpDbEngG6+X2JmiDJCZJZvUjYA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jan 2022 13:49:15 +0100
From:   Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc:     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>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        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,
        linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.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>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux PWM List <linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
        Saravanan Sekar <sravanhome@...il.com>,
        Corey Minyard <minyard@....org>,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        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>,
        Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
        Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
        openipmi-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
        Mun Yew Tham <mun.yew.tham@...el.com>,
        Eric Auger <eric.auger@...hat.com>,
        netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Joakim Zhang <qiangqing.zhang@....com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Zha Qipeng <qipeng.zha@...el.com>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@...natech.se>,
        linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org,
        Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
        Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform: make platform_get_irq_optional() optional

Hi Uwe,

On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 1:08 PM Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:37:25AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 10:09 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> > <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> > > For the (clk|gpiod|regulator)_get_optional() you don't have to check
> > > against the magic not-found value (so no implementation detail magic
> > > leaks into the caller code) and just pass it to the next API function.
> > > (And my expectation would be that if you chose to represent not-found by
> > > (void *)66 instead of NULL, you won't have to adapt any user, just the
> > > framework internal checks. This is a good thing!)
> >
> > Ah, there is the wrong assumption: drivers sometimes do need to know
> > if the resource was found, and thus do need to know about (void *)66,
> > -ENODEV, or -ENXIO.  I already gave examples for IRQ and clk before.
> > I can imagine these exist for gpiod and regulator, too, as soon as
> > you go beyond the trivial "enable" and "disable" use-cases.
>
> My premise is that every user who has to check for "not found"
> explicitly should not use (clk|gpiod)_get_optional() but
> (clk|gpiod)_get() and do proper (and explicit) error handling for
> -ENODEV. (clk|gpiod)_get_optional() is only for these trivial use-cases.
>
> > And 0/NULL vs. > 0 is the natural check here: missing, but not
> > an error.
>
> For me it it 100% irrelevant if "not found" is an error for the query
> function or not. I just have to be able to check for "not found" and
> react accordingly.
>
> And adding a function
>
>         def platform_get_irq_opional():
>                 ret = platform_get_irq()
>                 if ret == -ENXIO:
>                         return 0
>                 return ret
>
> it's not a useful addition to the API if I cannot use 0 as a dummy
> because it doesn't simplify the caller enough to justify the additional
> function.
>
> The only thing I need to be able is to distinguish the cases "there is
> an irq", "there is no irq" and anything else is "there is a problem I
> cannot handle and so forward it to my caller". The semantic of
> platform_get_irq() is able to satisfy this requirement[1], so why introduce
> platform_get_irq_opional() for the small advantage that I can check for
> not-found using
>
>         if (!irq)
>
> instead of
>
>         if (irq != -ENXIO)
>
> ? The semantic of platform_get_irq() is easier ("Either a usable
> non-negative irq number or a negative error number") compared to
> platform_get_irq_optional() ("Either a usable positive irq number or a
> negative error number or 0 meaning not found"). Usage of
> platform_get_irq() isn't harder or more expensive (neither for a human
> reader nor for a maching running the resulting compiled code).
> For a human reader
>
>         if (irq != -ENXIO)
>
> is even easier to understand because for
>
>         if (!irq)
>
> they have to check where the value comes from, see it's
> platform_get_irq_optional() and understand that 0 means not-found.

"vIRQ zero does not exist."

> This function just adds overhead because as a irq framework user I have
> to understand another function. For me the added benefit is too small to
> justify the additional function. And you break out-of-tree drivers.
> These are all no major counter arguments, but as the advantage isn't
> major either, they still matter.
>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> [1] the only annoying thing is the error message.

So there's still a need for two functions.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Powered by blists - more mailing lists