On 11/20/21 00:43, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c b/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c
>> index 30759fd1c3a2..011daac4a14e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c
>> @@ -1493,7 +1493,7 @@ static int sata_fsl_probe(struct platform_device *ofdev)
>> host_priv->ssr_base = ssr_base;
>> host_priv->csr_base = csr_base;
>>
>> - irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(ofdev->dev.of_node, 0);
>> + irq = platform_get_irq(ofdev, 0);
>> if (!irq) {
>
> if (irq < 0) {
>
> platform_get_irq() returns negative error codes, not 0 on failure.
Sergei,
By the way, the kdoc comment for platform_get_irq() says:
"Return: non-zero IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure."
But irq 0 is valid, isn't it ? So shouldn't this be changed to something
like:
"Return: IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure."
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
