On 12/10/21 1:46 PM, 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; >> >> My unmerged patch (https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=163623041902285) does this >> but returns -EINVAL instead. >> >>> Otherwise, I do not think that removing the "if (!irq)" hunk is safe. no ? >> >> Of course it isn't... > > It's unsubstantiated statement. The vIRQ 0 shouldn't be returned by any of > those API calls. We do _not_ know what needs to be fixed, that's the problem, and that's why the WARN() is there... > If it is the case, go and fix them, no need to workaround > in each of the callers. There's a need to work around as long as IRQ0 ican be returned, otherwise we get partly functioning or non-functioning drivers... MBR, Sergey
