Re: [PATCH v3] gpio: ath79: Add missing check for platform_get_irq

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:46:36 +0800 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:28:17PM +0300, andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx kirjoitti:
>> Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:18:41AM +0800, Jiasheng Jiang kirjoitti:
>> 
>> Is this v4?
>>

I will submit a v4.
 
>> > Add the missing check for platform_get_irq() and return error
>> > if it fails.
>> > The returned error code will be dealed with in
>> > module_platform_driver(ath79_gpio_driver) and the driver will not
>> > be registered.
>> 
>> No, this functional change and has not to be for the fixes unless _this_ is the
>> regression you are fixing. Did the driver work before at some point as after
>> this change?

I will remove the fixes tag in v4.

> 
> To be more clear, answer to the following questions:
> 1) does driver work with wrong DT configuration?
> 2a) if yes, does it make sense, i.e. the hardware functioning usefully?
> 2b) if yes, can we guarantee there are no broken configurations in the wild?
> 
> Depending on the answers correct your code and/or commit message.
> 
>> Otherwise you have to _justify_ that this functional change won't break
>> existing setups (with broked IRQ in Device Tree, for example).

Sorry, I do not quite understand what you mean.
I have no idea how these questions are related to my patch.
Do you mean I should not fail the ->probe() if there is wrong IRQ numbering in the DT?
Please tell me the relationship between these questions and my patch.

Thanks,
Jiasheng




[Index of Archives]     [Linux SPI]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux ARM (vger)]     [Linux ARM MSM]     [Linux Omap]     [Linux Arm]     [Linux Tegra]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Samsung SOC]     [eCos]     [Linux Fastboot]     [Gcc Help]     [Git]     [DCCP]     [IETF Announce]     [Security]     [Linux MIPS]     [Yosemite Campsites]

  Powered by Linux