On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:43:02PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:29 PM Akhil R <akhilrajeev@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > This change reveals potential issue: > > > > > > > > > > > - irq = of_irq_get_byname(adapter->dev.of_node, "smbus_alert"); > > > > > > + irq = device_irq_get_byname(adapter->dev.parent, > > > "smbus_alert"); > > > > > > > > > > > if (irq <= 0) > > > > > > > > > > I guess this '= 0' part should be fixed first. > > > > > > > > '0' is a failure as per the documentation of of_irq_get_byname() as well as > > > > of_irq_get(). The case is different for acpi_irq_get(), but it is handled in > > > > fwnode_irq_get(). If I understood it right, a return value of '0' should be > > > > considered a failure here. > > > > > > Depends. I have no idea what the original code does here. But > > > returning an error or 0 from this function seems confusing to me. > > > > > The description in of_irq_get*() says - > > /* Return: Linux IRQ number on success, or 0 on the IRQ mapping failure, or > > * -EPROBE_DEFER if the IRQ domain is not yet created, or error code in case > > * of any other failure. > > */ > > As I see from the code of fwnode_irq_get(), which is used in this case, returns > > either the return value of of_irq_get() or error code from acpi_irq_get() when > > it fails, or res.start if it didn't fail. I guess, any of these would not be 0 unless > > there is an error. > > of_irq_get*() seems inconsistent... > > Uwe, what do you think? Yeah, this is something I stumbled over during the platform_get_irq*() discussion. But I don't feel like investing any more energy there. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
