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