On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 2:35 PM Jackie Liu <liu.yun@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> + /* For platform based machines, neither ERR nor NULL can happen here.
> + * The s3c24xx_handle_irq() will be set as IRQ handler iff this succeeds:
> + *
> + * s3c_intc[0] = s3c24xx_init_intc()
> + *
> + * If this fails, the next calls to s3c24xx_init_intc() won't be executed.
> + *
> + * For DT machine, s3c_init_intc_of() could set the IRQ handler without
> + * setting s3c_intc[0] only if it was called with num_ctrl=0. There is no
> + * such code path, so again the s3c_intc[0] will have a valid pointer if
> + * set_handle_irq() is called.
> + *
> + * Therefore in s3c24xx_handle_irq(), the s3c_intc[0] is always something.
> + */
> + if (s3c24xx_handle_intc(s3c_intc[0], regs, 0))
> + continue;
>
> - if (s3c_intc[2])
> + if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(s3c_intc[2]))
> if (s3c24xx_handle_intc(s3c_intc[2], regs, 64))
> continue;
I just saw this in the pull request. I'm taking the pull request since
it's a bugfix and
the resulting code is technically correct, but I'd point out that this
is particularly
ugly. Any use of IS_ERR_OR_NULL() essentially means we have a misdefined
interface, and it's clear that this is one of them.
Nothing actually uses the return code of s3c24xx_init_intc(), so returning
NULL on error there and changing all the checks to that would be a much
more straightforward solution.
Any chance you could send a follow-up to do that?
Arnd
