Hello Andy,
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 12:13:01PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 08:13:51AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 11:16:30PM +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
This patch is based on the former Andy Shevchenko's patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210331144526.19439-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux....
Currently platform_get_irq_optional() returns an error code even if IRQ resource simply has not been found. It prevents the callers from being error code agnostic in their error handling:
ret = platform_get_irq_optional(...); if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENXIO) return ret; // respect deferred probe if (ret > 0) ...we get an IRQ...
All other *_optional() APIs seem to return 0 or NULL in case an optional resource is not available. Let's follow this good example, so that the callers would look like:
ret = platform_get_irq_optional(...); if (ret < 0) return ret; if (ret > 0) ...we get an IRQ...
Reported-by: Matthias Schiffer matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov s.shtylyov@omp.ru
While this patch is better than v1, I still don't like it for the reasons discussed for v1. (i.e. 0 isn't usable as a dummy value which I consider the real advantage for the other _get_optional() functions.)
I think you haven't reacted anyhow to my point that you mixing apples and bananas together when comparing this 0 to the others _optional APIs.
Is this a question to me or Sergey?
I fully agree, when the 0 of platform_get_irq_optional is an apple and the NULL of gpio_get_optional is a banana, I doubt "All other *_optional() APIs seem to return 0 or NULL in case an optional resource is not available. Let's follow this good example, [...]".
Best regards Uwe