On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 04:56:42PM -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:05:58PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:53:06AM +0100, Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> > >> Last time around, my understanding was that, going forward,
> > >> the best solution was:
> > >>
> > >> virq = platform_get_irq(...)
> > >> if (virq <= 0)
> > >> return virq ? : -ENODEV;
> > >>
> > >> i.e. map 0 to -ENODEV, pass other errors as-is, remove the dev_err
> > >>
> > >> @Bjorn/Lorenzo did you have a change of heart?
> > >
> > > Yes. In 10006651 (Oct 20, 2017), I thought:
> > >
> > > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > > if (irq <= 0)
> > > return -ENODEV;
> > >
> > > was fine. In 11066455 (Aug 7, 2019), I said I thought I was wrong and
> > > that:
> > >
> > > platform_get_irq() is a generic interface and we have to be able to
> > > interpret return values consistently. The overwhelming consensus
> > > among platform_get_irq() callers is to treat "irq < 0" as an error,
> > > and I think we should follow suit.
> > > ...
> > > I think the best pattern is:
> > >
> > > irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
> > > if (irq < 0)
> > > return irq;
> >
> > Careful. 0 is not a valid interrupt.
>
> Should callers of platform_get_irq() check for a 0 return value?
> About 900 of them do not.
>
> Or should platform_get_irq() return a negative error instead of 0?
> If 0 is not a valid interrupt, I think it would be easier to use the
> interface if we made it so platform_get_irq() could never return 0,
> which I think would also fit the interface documentation better:
>
> * Return: IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure.
Trying again -- I'm not quite catching your meaning, Thomas.
If platform_get_irq*() can return 0, but 0 is not a valid IRQ, I think
it's sort of complicated to parse that return value. Drivers that
require an IRQ would do this:
irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
if (irq < 0)
return irq;
if (irq == 0)
return -EINVAL; # error since driver requires IRQ
return devm_request_irq(dev, irq, ...);
Drivers that can either use an IRQ or do polling would do this:
irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
if (irq <= 0)
return setup_polling();
return devm_request_irq(dev, irq, ...);
I think those are sort of ungainly, especially the first. If we made
it so those functions never returned 0, drivers that need an IRQ could
do this:
irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
if (irq < 0)
return irq;
return devm_request_irq(dev, irq, ...);
and drivers that support polling could do this:
irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
if (irq < 0)
return setup_polling();
return devm_request_irq(dev, irq, ...);
That seems a lot easier to get correct, and it matches what most of
the callers already do.
