On 2021/12/10 7:49, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2021/12/09 23:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> platform_get_irq() will print a message when it fails.
>> No need to repeat this.
>>
>> While at it, drop redundant check for 0 as platform_get_irq() spills
>> out a big WARN() in such case.
>
> The reason you should be able to remove the "if (!irq)" test is that
> platform_get_irq() never returns 0. At least, that is what the function kdoc
> says. But looking at platform_get_irq_optional(), which is called by
> platform_get_irq(), the out label is:
>
> WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n");
> return ret;
>
> So 0 will be returned as-is. That is rather weird. That should be fixed to
> return -ENXIO:
>
> if (WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n"))
> return -ENXIO;
> return ret;
>
> Otherwise, I do not think that removing the "if (!irq)" hunk is safe. no ?
Replying to myself :)
I replied before reading Sergei replies that points this out.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c | 7 +------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c b/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c
>> index 0910441321f7..1af642c84e7b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c
>> @@ -579,13 +579,8 @@ int ahci_platform_init_host(struct platform_device *pdev,
>> int i, irq, n_ports, rc;
>>
>> irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> - if (irq < 0) {
>> - if (irq != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> - dev_err(dev, "no irq\n");
>> + if (irq < 0)
>> return irq;
>> - }
>> - if (!irq)
>> - return -EINVAL;
>>
>> hpriv->irq = irq;
>>
>
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
