On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 08:13:25PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > > > On 25/05/2020 10:05, Michal Simek wrote: > > On 23. 05. 20 19:09, Dejin Zheng wrote: > > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 06:08:29PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 10:51:55PM +0800, Dejin Zheng wrote: > > > > > It will call devm_request_irq() after platform_get_irq() function > > > > > in many drivers, sometimes, it is not right for the error handling > > > > > of these two functions in some drivers. so provide this function > > > > > to simplify the driver. > > > > > > > > > > the first patch will provide devm_platform_request_irq(), and the > > > > > other patch will convert to devm_platform_request_irq() in some > > > > > i2c bus dirver. > > > > > > > > > > v1 -> v2: > > > > > - I give up this series of patches in v1 version. I resend this > > > > > patches v2 by that discussion: > > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-i2c/patch/20200520144821.8069-1-zhengdejin5@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > The patch content has not changed. > > > > > > > > I don't understand. v1 has been nacked because of technical reasons. How > > > > did the discussion above change the situation? Am I missing something? > > > > > > > No, you are not missing something. Maybe I did not explain clearly. > > > > > > The v1 has been nacked because Grygorii told me that the > > > function platform_get_irq() should be done as early as possible to avoid > > > unnecessary initialization steps, and the function devm_request_irq() > > > should be done late in probe when driver and HW are actually ready to > > > handle IRQs. It can do the other things between the two funtions. I agree > > > with him that it may be necessary in some complex drives. So abandon the > > > patch v1. > > > > > > Base on the discussion of you and Michal, I think maybe this patch is also > > > needed for the simple driver or the driver of already use it like that: > > > > > > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > > > if (irq < 0) > > > return irq; > > > ret = devm_request_irq() > > > > > > It provides a common error handling and reduce one function call for each > > > drivers, more easier to use and simplify code. So resend it. > > > > > > BR, > > > Dejin > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dejin Zheng (2): > > > > > drivers: provide devm_platform_request_irq() > > > > > i2c: busses: convert to devm_platform_request_irq() > > > > > > > > > > drivers/base/platform.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-bcm-kona.c | 16 +++------------ > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-cadence.c | 10 +++------ > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-digicolor.c | 10 +++------ > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-emev2.c | 5 ++--- > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-jz4780.c | 5 ++--- > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-meson.c | 13 ++++-------- > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-mxs.c | 9 +++----- > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-pnx.c | 9 ++------ > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rcar.c | 9 +++----- > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-rk3x.c | 14 +++---------- > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-sirf.c | 10 ++------- > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-stu300.c | 4 ++-- > > > > > drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-synquacer.c | 12 +++-------- > > > > > include/linux/platform_device.h | 4 ++++ > > > > > 15 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-) > > > > If you look at all driver except for cadence one it doesn't do any > > change and I can't see any issue with it because sequences are the same > > as were before. > > > > Regarding Cadence and Grygorii's comments: > > We are not checking that id->irq is valid that's why even if that fails > > driver continues to work. Which means that this change doesn't increase > > boot time or change code flow. > > On Xilinx devices cadence i2c is connected to ARM GIC which is > > initialized very early and IRC controller should be up and running all > > the time. > > That's why I can't see any issue which this change on Cadence driver too. > > > My main point was to pay attention on changes, which may be risky > especially when they are part of bulk changes (such optimization tend to spread > fast and all over the kernel without proper review). > > Sry, if i introduced some misunderstanding, but it seems worked and this patch has got more attention. > There are no objection from my side to use devm_platform_get_and_ioremap_resource() if driver > owners find it acceptable. > This should be my misunderstanding regarding your comment in patch v1, Anyway, thanks everyone for using your precious time to review my patch. And also I very sorry for the Gmail will prevent me sending messages to a large number of recipient, I had to reduce the number of recipients to send this email. so sorry! BR, Dejin > -- > Best regards, > grygorii
