On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 02:08:19PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Uwe,
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:49 PM Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 11:35:52AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 10:24 AM Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de wrote:
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 09:41:42AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 9:22 PM Sergey Shtylyov s.shtylyov@omp.ru wrote:
On 1/14/22 11:22 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > You have to understand that for clk (and regulator and gpiod) NULL is a > valid descriptor that can actually be used, it just has no effect. So > this is a convenience value for the case "If the clk/regulator/gpiod in > question isn't available, there is nothing to do". This is what makes > clk_get_optional() and the others really useful and justifies their > existence. This doesn't apply to platform_get_irq_optional().
I do understand that. However, IRQs are a different beast with their own justifications...
> clk_get_optional() is sane and sensible for cases where the clk might be > absent and it helps you because you don't have to differentiate between > "not found" and "there is an actual resource". > > The reason for platform_get_irq_optional()'s existence is just that > platform_get_irq() emits an error message which is wrong or suboptimal
I think you are very wrong here. The real reason is to simplify the callers.
Indeed.
The commit that introduced platform_get_irq_optional() said:
Introduce a new platform_get_irq_optional() that works much like platform_get_irq() but does not output an error on failure to find the interrupt.So the author of 8973ea47901c81a1912bd05f1577bed9b5b52506 failed to mention the real reason? Or look at 31a8d8fa84c51d3ab00bf059158d5de6178cf890:
[...] use platform_get_irq_optional() to get second/third IRQ which are optional to avoid below error message during probe: [...]Look through the output of
git log -Splatform_get_irq_optionalto find several more of these.
Commit 8973ea47901c81a1 ("driver core: platform: Introduce platform_get_irq_optional()") and the various fixups fixed the ugly printing of error messages that were not applicable. In hindsight, probably commit 7723f4c5ecdb8d83 ("driver core: platform: Add an error message to platform_get_irq*()") should have been reverted instead, until a platform_get_irq_optional() with proper semantics was introduced.
ack.
But as we were all in a hurry to kill the non-applicable error message, we went for the quick and dirty fix.
Also I fail to see how a caller of (today's) platform_get_irq_optional() is simpler than a caller of platform_get_irq() given that there is no semantic difference between the two. Please show me a single conversion from platform_get_irq to platform_get_irq_optional that yielded a simplification.
That's exactly why we want to change the latter to return 0 ;-)
OK. So you agree to my statement "The reason for platform_get_irq_optional()'s existence is just that platform_get_irq() emits an error message [...]". Actually you don't want to oppose but say: It's unfortunate that the silent variant of platform_get_irq() took the obvious name of a function that could have an improved return code semantic.
So my suggestion to rename todays platform_get_irq_optional() to platform_get_irq_silently() and then introducing platform_get_irq_optional() with your suggested semantic seems intriguing and straigt forward to me.
I don't really see the point of needing platform_get_irq_silently(), unless as an intermediary step, where it's going to be removed again once the conversion has completed.
We agree that one of the two functions is enough, just differ in which of the two we want to have. :-)
If you think platform_get_irq_silently() is a good intermediate step for your goal, then we agree to rename platform_get_irq_optional(). So I suggest you ack my patch.
Still, the rename would touch all users at once anyway.
It would be more easy to keep the conversion regression-free however. A plain rename is simple to verify. And then converting to the new platform_get_irq_optional() can be done individually and without the need to do everything in a single step.
Another thought: platform_get_irq emits an error message for all problems. Wouldn't it be consistent to let platform_get_irq_optional() emit an error message for all problems but "not found"? Alternatively remove the error printk from platform_get_irq().
Yes, all problems but not found are real errors.
If you want to make platform_get_irq and its optional variant more similar to the others, dropping the error message is the way to go.
So you need some more effort to convince me of your POV.
Even for clocks, you cannot assume that you can always blindly use the returned dummy (actually a NULL pointer) to call into the clk API. While this works fine for simple use cases, where you just want to enable/disable an optional clock (clk_prepare_enable() and clk_disable_unprepare()), it does not work for more complex use cases.
Agreed. But for clks and gpiods and regulators the simple case is quite usual. For irqs it isn't.
It is for devices that can have either separate interrupts, or a single multiplexed interrupt.
The logic in e.g. drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c and drivers/spi/spi-rspi.c could be simplified and improved (currently it doesn't handle deferred probe) if platform_get_irq_optional() would return 0 instead of -ENXIO.
Looking at sh-sci.c the irq handling logic could be improved even without a changed platform_get_irq_optional():
diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c b/drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c index 968967d722d4..c7dc9fb84844 100644 --- a/drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/sh-sci.c @@ -2873,11 +2873,13 @@ static int sci_init_single(struct platform_device *dev, * interrupt ID numbers, or muxed together with another interrupt. */ if (sci_port->irqs[0] < 0)
return -ENXIO;
return sci_port->irqs[0];
if (sci_port->irqs[1] < 0)
if (sci_port->irqs[1] == -ENXIO) for (i = 1; i < ARRAY_SIZE(sci_port->irqs); i++) sci_port->irqs[i] = sci_port->irqs[0];else if (sci_port->irqs[1] < 0)return sci_port->irqs[1]; sci_port->params = sci_probe_regmap(p); if (unlikely(sci_port->params == NULL))And then the code flow is actively irritating. sci_init_single() copies irqs[0] to all other irqs[i] and then sci_request_irq() loops over the already requested irqs and checks for duplicates. A single place that identifies the exact set of required irqs would already help a lot.
Yeah, it's ugly and convoluted, like the wide set of hardware the driver supports.
Also for spi-rspi.c I don't see how platform_get_irq_byname_optional() returning 0 instead of -ENXIO would help. Please talk in patches.
--- a/drivers/spi/spi-rspi.c +++ b/drivers/spi/spi-rspi.c @@ -1420,17 +1420,25 @@ static int rspi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) ctlr->max_native_cs = rspi->ops->num_hw_ss;
ret = platform_get_irq_byname_optional(pdev, "rx");
if (ret < 0) {
if (ret < 0)goto error2;if (!ret) { ret = platform_get_irq_byname_optional(pdev, "mux");
if (ret < 0)
if (!ret) ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);if (ret < 0)goto error2;if (ret >= 0) rspi->rx_irq = rspi->tx_irq = ret; } else { rspi->rx_irq = ret; ret = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "tx");
if (ret >= 0)rspi->tx_irq = ret;
if (ret < 0)goto error2;rspi->tx_irq = ret; } if (rspi->rx_irq == rspi->tx_irq) {
This is not a simplification, just looking at the line count and the added gotos. That's because it also improves error handling and so the effect isn't easily spotted.
I like it when the "if (ret < ) ..." error handling is the first check to do.
That's a relevant difference between us.
With -ENXIO, it becomes more convoluted. and looks less nice (IMHO).
Preferably first simplify in-driver logic to make the conversion to the new platform_get_irq_optional() actually reviewable.
So I have to choose between
if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENXIO) return ret; if (ret) { ... }and
if (ret == -ENXIO) { ... } else if (ret < 0) return ret; }
I would do the latter, then it's in the normal order for error handling
handle some specific errors; forward unhandled errors up the stack; handle success;
but it seems you prefer to not call "not found" an error. Actually I think it's an advantage that the driver has to mention -ENXIO, feels like proper error handling to me. I guess we won't agree about that though.
What about the following idea (in pythonic pseudo code for simplicity):
# the rspi device either has two irqs, one for rx and one for # tx, or a single one for both together.
def muxed_hander(irq): status = readl(STATUS) if status & IF_RX: rx_handler() if status & IF_TX: tx_handler()
def probe_muxed_irq(): irq = platform_get_irq_by_name("mux") if irq < 0: return irq;
request_irq(irq, muxed_handler)
def probe_separate_irqs(): txirq = platform_get_irq_by_name("tx") if txirq < 0: return txirq
rxirq = platform_get_irq_by_name("rx") if rxirq < 0: return rxirq
request_irq(txirq, tx_handler) request_irq(rxirq, rx_handler)
def probe(): ret = probe_separate_irqs() if ret == -ENXIO: ret = probe_muxed_irq()
if ret < 0: return ret
looks clean (to me that is) and allows to skip the demuxing in tx_handler and rx_handler (which might or might not yield improved runtime behaviour). Maybe a bit more verbose, but simpler to grasp for a human, isn't it?
with the final target being
if (ret < 0) return ret; if (ret) { ... }So the first option means the final change is smaller, but it looks less nice than the second option (IMHO). But the second option means more churn.
So there are three reasons: because the absence of an optional IRQ is not an error, and thus that should not cause (a) an error code to be returned, and (b) an error message to be printed, and (c) because it can simplify the logic in device drivers.
I don't agree to (a). If the value signaling not-found is -ENXIO or 0 (or -ENODEV) doesn't matter much. I wouldn't deviate from the return code semantics of platform_get_irq() just for having to check against 0 instead of -ENXIO. Zero is then just another magic value.
Zero is a natural magic value (also for pointers). Errors are always negative. Positive values are cookies (or pointers) associated with success.
Yeah, the issue where we don't agree is if "not-found" is special enough to deserve the natural magic value. For me -ENXIO is magic enough to handle the absence of an irq line. I consider it even the better magic value.
(c) still has to be proven, see above.
Best regards Uwe