> On Wed, Jan 12, 2022 at 3:14 PM Akhil R <akhilrajeev@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Get interrupt by name from ACPI table as well.
> >
> > Add option to use 'interrupt-names' in _DSD which can map to interrupt
> > by index. The implementation is similar to 'interrupt-names' in devicetree.
> > Also add a common routine to get irq by name from devicetree and ACPI
> > table.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Akhil R <akhilrajeev@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/property.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/property.h | 3 +++
> > 2 files changed, 38 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/property.c b/drivers/base/property.c index
> > cbe4fa2..414c316 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/property.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/property.c
> > @@ -920,6 +920,41 @@ int fwnode_irq_get(const struct fwnode_handle
> > *fwnode, unsigned int index) EXPORT_SYMBOL(fwnode_irq_get);
> >
> > /**
> > + * fwnode_irq_get_byname - Get IRQ from a fwnode using its name
> > + * @fwnode: Pointer to the firmware node
> > + * @name: IRQ name in interrupt-names property in fwnode
> > + *
> > + * Returns Linux IRQ number on success, errno otherwise.
> > + */
> > +int fwnode_irq_get_byname(const struct fwnode_handle *fwnode, const
> > +char *name) {
> > + int index;
> > +
> > + if (unlikely(!name))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + index = fwnode_property_match_string(fwnode, "interrupt-names",
> name);
> > + if (index < 0)
> > + return index;
> > +
> > + return fwnode_irq_get(fwnode, index); }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(fwnode_irq_get_byname);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * device_irq_get_byname - Get IRQ of a device using interrupt name
> > + * @dev: Device to get the interrupt
> > + * @name: IRQ name in interrupt-names property in fwnode
>
> Which fwnode?
>
> > + *
> > + * Returns Linux IRQ number on success, errno otherwise.
> > + */
> > +int device_irq_get_byname(struct device *dev, const char *name) {
> > + return fwnode_irq_get_byname(dev_fwnode(dev), name); }
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(device_irq_get_byname);
>
> This can be confusing, because it pretends to be super-generic and in fact it
> depends on an fwnode to be there.
>
> I guess I'd rather not have it at all, or use a more precise name for it.
But, I suppose, the other device_*() functions also depend on the fwnode.
Wouldn't it make the naming inconsistent if we add a different one here?
Would it be better if I add more details in the description comment?
