On 1/14/22 11:29 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... :-) > > I will care for it. Ah! OK then. :-) >>> 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... > > Yes, I didn't count you to the three people signaling agreement. :-D >> [...] >>> 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? > > The plan is to remove the define in one or two kernel releases. The idea > is only to not break patches that are currently in next. > >> 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... > > The deprecated function annotation is generally frowned upon. See > 771c035372a0. Not sure I share the sentiment but good to know about that. > Best regards > Uwe MBR, Sergey
