On 1/13/22 10:43 PM, 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. Hm... I'm afraid that with this #define they would never get 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. I can't say I genrally agree with this patch... [...] > diff --git a/include/linux/platform_device.h b/include/linux/platform_device.h > index 7c96f169d274..6d495f15f717 100644 > --- a/include/linux/platform_device.h > +++ b/include/linux/platform_device.h > @@ -69,7 +69,14 @@ extern void __iomem * > devm_platform_ioremap_resource_byname(struct platform_device *pdev, > const char *name); > extern int platform_get_irq(struct platform_device *, unsigned int); > -extern int platform_get_irq_optional(struct platform_device *, unsigned int); > +extern int platform_get_irq_silent(struct platform_device *, unsigned int); > + > +/* > + * platform_get_irq_optional was recently renamed to platform_get_irq_silent. > + * Fixup users to not break patches that were created before the rename. > + */ > +#define platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, index) platform_get_irq_silent(pdev, index) > + Yeah, why bother fixing if it compiles anyway? I think an inline wrapper with an indication to gcc that the function is deprecated (I just forgot how it should look) would be better instead... > extern int platform_irq_count(struct platform_device *); > extern int devm_platform_get_irqs_affinity(struct platform_device *dev, > struct irq_affinity *affd, [...] MBR, Sergey
