Hi Rob,
>
>On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 11:21:06AM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 29, 2023 at 01:43:35PM +0800, James Tai wrote:
>> > +static int realtek_intc_subset(struct device_node *node, struct
>> > +realtek_intc_data *data, int index) {
>> > + struct realtek_intc_subset_data *subset_data =
>&data->subset_data[index];
>> > + const struct realtek_intc_subset_cfg *cfg = &data->info->cfg[index];
>> > + int irq;
>> > +
>> > + irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, index);
>> > + if (irq <= 0)
>> > + return irq;
>>
>> I don't think irq_of_parse_and_map() can return negatives. Only zero
>> on error. Returning zero on error is a historical artifact with IRQ
>> functions and a constant source of bugs. But here returning zero is
>> success. See my blog for more details:
>> https://staticthinking.wordpress.com/2023/08/07/writing-a-check-for-ze
>> ro-irq-error-codes/
>
>It's worse than that. The irq functions historically returned NO_IRQ on error, but
>that could be 0 or -1 depending on the arch.
>
>Use of_irq_get() instead. It's a bit better in that it returns an error code for most
>cases. But still returns 0 on mapping failure.
>
I will use of_irq_get() instead and adjust the return value of realtek_intc_subset() in the next patches.
Thanks for your feedback.
Regards,
James
