On 12/10/21 8:59 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... >>> >>> So, have you seen this warning (being reported) related to libahci_platform? >> >> No (as if you need to really see this while it's obvious from the code review). >> >>> If no, what we are discussing about then? The workaround is redundant and >> >> I don't know. :-) Your arguments so far seem bogus (sorry! :-))... > > It seems you haven't got them at all. The problems of platform_get_irq() et al > shouldn't be worked around in the callers. I have clearly explained to you what I'm working around there. If that wasn't clear enough, I don't want to continue this talk anymore. Good luck with your patch (not this one). [...] MBR, Sergey
