Hello,
On Sun, Jan 16, 2022 at 09:15:20PM +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> On 1/14/22 11:22 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> To me it sounds much more logical for the driver to check if an
> >>>>>>> optional irq is non-zero (available) or zero (not available), than to
> >>>>>>> sprinkle around checks for -ENXIO. In addition, you have to remember
> >>>>>>> that this one returns -ENXIO, while other APIs use -ENOENT or -ENOSYS
> >>>>>>> (or some other error code) to indicate absence. I thought not having
> >>>>>>> to care about the actual error code was the main reason behind the
> >>>>>>> introduction of the *_optional() APIs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> No, the main benefit of gpiod_get_optional() (and clk_get_optional()) is
> >>>>>> that you can handle an absent GPIO (or clk) as if it were available.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hm, I've just looked at these and must note that they match 1:1 with
> >>>> platform_get_irq_optional(). Unfortunately, we can't however behave the
> >>>> same way in request_irq() -- because it has to support IRQ0 for the sake
> >>>> of i8253 drivers in arch/...
> >>>
> >>> Let me reformulate your statement to the IMHO equivalent:
> >>>
> >>> If you set aside the differences between
> >>> platform_get_irq_optional() and gpiod_get_optional(),
> >>
> >> Sorry, I should make it clear this is actually the diff between a would-be
> >> platform_get_irq_optional() after my patch, not the current code...
> >
> > The similarity is that with your patch both gpiod_get_optional() and
> > platform_get_irq_optional() return NULL and 0 on not-found. The relevant
> > difference however is that for a gpiod NULL is a dummy value, while for
> > irqs it's not. So the similarity is only syntactically, but not
> > semantically.
>
> I have noting to say here, rather than optional IRQ could well have a different
> meaning than for clk/gpio/etc.
>
> [...]
> >>> However for an interupt this cannot work. You will always have to check
> >>> if the irq is actually there or not because if it's not you cannot just
> >>> ignore that. So there is no benefit of an optional irq.
> >>>
> >>> Leaving error message reporting aside, the introduction of
> >>> platform_get_irq_optional() allows to change
> >>>
> >>> irq = platform_get_irq(...);
> >>> if (irq < 0 && irq != -ENXIO) {
> >>> return irq;
> >>> } else if (irq >= 0) {
> >>
> >> Rather (irq > 0) actually, IRQ0 is considered invalid (but still returned).
> >
> > This is a topic I don't feel strong for, so I'm sloppy here. If changing
> > this is all that is needed to convince you of my point ...
>
> Note that we should absolutely (and first of all) stop returning 0 from platform_get_irq()
> on a "real" IRQ0. Handling that "still good" zero absolutely doesn't scale e.g. for the subsystems
> (like libata) which take 0 as an indication that the polling mode should be used... We can't afford
> to be sloppy here. ;-)
Then maybe do that really first? I didn't recheck, but is this what the
driver changes in your patch is about?
After some more thoughts I wonder if your focus isn't to align
platform_get_irq_optional to (clk|gpiod|regulator)_get_optional, but to
simplify return code checking. Because with your change we have:
- < 0 -> error
- == 0 -> no irq
- > 0 -> irq
For my part I'd say this doesn't justify the change, but at least I
could better life with the reasoning. If you start at:
irq = platform_get_irq_optional(...)
if (irq < 0 && irq != -ENXIO)
return irq
else if (irq > 0)
setup_irq(irq);
else
setup_polling()
I'd change that to
irq = platform_get_irq_optional(...)
if (irq > 0) /* or >= 0 ? */
setup_irq(irq)
else if (irq == -ENXIO)
setup_polling()
else
return irq
This still has to mention -ENXIO, but this is ok and checking for 0 just
hardcodes a different return value.
Anyhow, I think if you still want to change platform_get_irq_optional
you should add a few patches converting some drivers which demonstrates
the improvement for the callers.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
