On 2021/11/20 18:51, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 20.11.2021 9:08, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> 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."
>
> No, it's not valid (the current code WARN()s about it) and won't be
> returned anymore after my patch [1] gets applied.
>
> [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=163623041902285
OK. Got it. Thanks.
>
> MBR, Sergei
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
