On 8/17/23 04:33, chenjiahao (C) wrote:
>
> On 2023/8/16 20:46, Arnaud POULIQUEN wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 8/2/23 11:51, Chen Jiahao wrote:
>>> Referring to platform_get_irq()'s definition, the return value has
>>> already been checked if ret < 0, and printed via dev_err_probe().
>>> Calling dev_err_probe() one more time outside platform_get_irq()
>>> is obviously redundant.
>>>
>>> Removing dev_err_probe() outside platform_get_irq() to clean up
>>> above problem.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chen Jiahao <chenjiahao16@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>>> index 98234b44f038..a09eeb83ea5c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/stm32_rproc.c
>>> @@ -714,7 +714,7 @@ static int stm32_rproc_parse_dt(struct platform_device
>>> *pdev,
>>> irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>> if (irq == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>>> - return dev_err_probe(dev, irq, "failed to get interrupt\n");
>>> + return irq;
>> The IRQ is optional so using platform_get_irq_optional seems a better option
>> to me.
>>
>> - irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> + irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
>
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for your reminding.
>
> It seems that platform_get_irq is nothing more than platform_get_irq_optional,
> except wrapping a dev_err_probe for error code checking. So using the former
> one should also be OK.
>
> Or have I missed anywhere else?
The main difference is that platform_get_irq prints an error message, while
platform_get_irq just returns without print.
The IRQ is optional, It would be better to only include traces that is necessary
and useful for debugging purposes.
Best Regards,
Arnaud
>
> Best Regards,
> Jiahao
>
>>> if (irq == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>>> return dev_err_probe(dev, irq, "failed to get interrupt\n");
>> Thanks,
>> Arnaud
>>
>>> if (irq > 0) {
>>> err = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, stm32_rproc_wdg, 0,
