On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:59 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:23 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Quoting Geert Uytterhoeven (2019-10-16 07:31:42)
> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> > > index 9efae29722588a35..34da22f8b0660989 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> > > @@ -1121,7 +1121,7 @@ static void __init of_unittest_platform_populate(void)
> > > np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/testcase-device2");
> > > pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> > > unittest(pdev, "device 2 creation failed\n");
> > > - irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > > + irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
> > > unittest(irq < 0 && irq != -EPROBE_DEFER,
> >
> > This is a test to make sure that irq failure doesn't return probe defer.
> > Do we want to silence the error message that we're expecting to see?
>
> I think so. We're not interested in error messages for expected failures,
> only in error messages for unittest() failures.
The unittests start with a warning that error messages will be seen.
OTOH, we didn't get a message here before.
Rob
