On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 04:45:39PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 03:04:38PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 08:43:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > > 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. > > If someone already opposed to the renaming (and not only the name) I > must have missed that. > > So you think it's a good idea to keep the name > platform_get_irq_optional() despite the "not found" value returned by it > isn't usable as if it were a normal irq number? I meant that on the other side people who are in favour of Sergey's patch. Since that I commented already that I opposed the renaming being a standalone change. Do you agree that we have several issues with platform_get_irq*() APIs? 1. The unfortunate naming 2. The vIRQ0 handling: a) WARN() followed by b) returned value 0 3. The specific cookie for "IRQ not found, while no error happened" case -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
