On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 6/3/2016 3:14 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > >>> of_irq_get() returns 0 iff irq_create_of_mapping() call fails. Returning >>> both error code and 0 on failure is a sign of a misdesigned API. Return >>> -ENXIO instead like one of the callers, platform_get_irq(), does; fix up >>> the kernel-doc as well... >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> So I think this is done this way because of the variation in NO_IRQ >> definition across architectures. > > > I remember that NO_IRQ is "considered harmful" by Linus. Actually, I'm > nit sure what you mean, could you elaborate on that? Calling locations could handle 0 vs. negative differently. The return value propagates as well, so you can't easily audit how it is handled. I'm being paranoid, but we need a better reason than "misdesigned API". I'm pretty sure we misdesigned it on purpose. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
