Hello! On 1/19/22 9:36 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: [...] >> So you oppose to the name chosen, but not the renaming as such. > > I oppose the name change. The unneeded churn right now since it won't fix > the issues with the underneath API (platform_get_irq() in this case) and > will require one more iteration over callers again. > > The main issue that platform_get_irq*() returns magic error code while > treating 0 in a very special way (issuing WARN() and considering it as > a successful cookie) and this all is quite confusing. I have a patch for that -- to which you were hostile for some reason I still can't understand. :-) > If you are going to fix the underlying issue, welcome! Now I see only > the step to somewhere. I.o.w. this change _standalone_ makes no sense > to me. We already have a fix, no? It just hasn't been applied still... :-) Without it the 2 patches dealing with *_optional() don't have much sense. MBR, Sergey
