On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 08:43:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > The subsystems regulator, clk and gpio have the concept of a dummy > resource. For regulator, clk and gpio there is a semantic difference > between the regular _get() function and the _get_optional() variant. > (One might return the dummy resource, the other won't. Unfortunately > which one implements which isn't the same for these three.) The > difference between platform_get_irq() and platform_get_irq_optional() is > only that the former might emit an error message and the later won't. > > To prevent people's expectations that there is a semantic difference > between these too, rename platform_get_irq_optional() to > platform_get_irq_silent() to make the actual difference more obvious. > > The #define for the old name can and should be removed once all patches > currently in flux still relying on platform_get_irq_optional() are > fixed. > > Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Hello, > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 02:45:30PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 12:08:31PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > > This is all very unfortunate. In my eyes b) is the most sensible > > > sense, but the past showed that we don't agree here. (The most annoying > > > part of regulator_get is the warning that is emitted that regularily > > > makes customers ask what happens here and if this is fixable.) > > > > Fortunately it can be fixed, and it's safer to clearly specify things. > > The prints are there because when the description is wrong enough to > > cause things to blow up we can fail to boot or run messily and > > forgetting to describe some supplies (or typoing so they haven't done > > that) and people were having a hard time figuring out what might've > > happened. > > Yes, that's right. I sent a patch for such a warning in 2019 and pinged > occationally. Still waiting for it to be merged :-\ > (https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190625100412.11815-1-u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > > > > I think at least c) is easy to resolve because > > > platform_get_irq_optional() isn't that old yet and mechanically > > > replacing it by platform_get_irq_silent() should be easy and safe. > > > And this is orthogonal to the discussion if -ENOXIO is a sensible return > > > value and if it's as easy as it could be to work with errors on irq > > > lookups. > > > > It'd certainly be good to name anything that doesn't correspond to one > > of the existing semantics for the API (!) something different rather > > than adding yet another potentially overloaded meaning. > > It seems we're (at least) three who agree about this. Here is a patch > fixing the name. And similar number of people are on the other side. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
