On 1/14/22 12:42 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> The subsystems regulator, clk and gpio have the concept of a dummy >> resource. For regulator, clk and gpio there is a semantic difference >> between the regular _get() function and the _get_optional() variant. >> (One might return the dummy resource, the other won't. Unfortunately >> which one implements which isn't the same for these three.) The >> difference between platform_get_irq() and platform_get_irq_optional() is >> only that the former might emit an error message and the later won't. >> >> To prevent people's expectations that there is a semantic difference >> between these too, rename platform_get_irq_optional() to >> platform_get_irq_silent() to make the actual difference more obvious. >> >> The #define for the old name can and should be removed once all patches >> currently in flux still relying on platform_get_irq_optional() are >> fixed. >> >> Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [...] >>>> I think at least c) is easy to resolve because >>>> platform_get_irq_optional() isn't that old yet and mechanically >>>> replacing it by platform_get_irq_silent() should be easy and safe. >>>> And this is orthogonal to the discussion if -ENOXIO is a sensible return >>>> value and if it's as easy as it could be to work with errors on irq >>>> lookups. >>> >>> 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. > > From an API naming perspective this does not make much sense anymore with the name chosen, > it is understood that whent he function is called platform_get_irq_optional(), optional applies > to the IRQ. An optional IRQ is something people can reason about because it makes sense. Right! :-) > What is a a "silent" IRQ however? It does not apply to the object it is trying to fetch to > anymore, but to the message that may not be printed in case the resource failed to be obtained, > because said resource is optional. Woah, that's quite a stretch. Right again! :-) > Following the discussion and original 2 patches set from Sergey, it is not entirely clear to me > anymore what is it that we are trying to fix. Andy and me tried to fix the platform_get_irq[_byname]_optional() value, corresponding to a missing (optional) IRQ resource from -ENXIO to 0, in order to keep the callers error code agnostic. This change completely aligns e.g. platform_get_irq_optional() with clk_get_optional() and gpiod_get_optional()... Unforunately, we can't "fix" request_irq() and company to treat 0 as missing IRQ -- they have to keep the ability to get called from the arch/ code (that doesn't use platform_get_irq(), etc. > I nearly forgot, I would paint it blue, sky blue, not navy blue, not light blue ;) :-) PS: Florian, something was wrong with your mail client -- I had to manually wrap your quotes, else there were super long unbroken paragraphs...
