On 10/25/22 19:30, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 06:12:11PM +0300, Matti Vaittinen wrote: >> The fwnode_irq_get_byname() was changed to not return 0 upon failure so >> return value check can be adjusted to reflect the change. > > ... > >> Depends on the mentioned return value change which is in patch 1/2. The >> return value change does also cause a functional change here. Eg. when >> IRQ mapping fails, the fwnode_irq_get_byname() no longer returns zero. >> This will cause also the probe here to return nonzero failure. I guess >> this is desired behaviour. > > The entire error handling there looks suspicious. > > The 'struct i2c_smbus_alert_setup' description says: > > "If irq is not specified, the smbus_alert driver doesn't take care of > interrupt handling. In that case it is up to the I2C bus driver to > either handle the interrupts or to poll for alerts." > > So, the question is, shouldn't we just drop the check completely? I don't really know what this means. Does it mean that if IRQ is not provided, the driver needs to take care of alerts (in which case the check here is very valid because IRQ is required for smbus_alert driver). Or does it mean that only the IRQ handling is omitted while the smbus_alert driver should do all the other stuff (what ever that is) as usual. In this case this check indeed feels wrong. I would appreciate someone with more insight to this driver to take a look at it. Yours -- Matti -- Matti Vaittinen Linux kernel developer at ROHM Semiconductors Oulu Finland ~~ When things go utterly wrong vim users can always type :help! ~~
