On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 10:47:06PM +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
On 1/19/22 9:51 PM, Andy Shevchenko 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?
- The unfortunate naming
Mmm, "what's in a name?"... is this the topmost prio issue?
The order is arbitrary.
- The vIRQ0 handling: a) WARN() followed by b) returned value 0
This is the most severe issue, I think...
- The specific cookie for "IRQ not found, while no error happened" case