On 12/10/21 10:25 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). > > Good luck with yours, not the one that touches platform_get_irq_optional() though! Mmh, I'm not touching it any way that would break what your patch was trying to do, unless you've re-thopught that. It also shoudn't matter whose patch gets merged 1st other than some small adaptation). MBR, Sergey
