Hi Wolfram,
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:13 PM Wolfram Sang <w...@the-dreams.de> wrote:
> > these drivers pop up, I think we can have another function like
> > platform_get_irq_probe() or platform_get_irq_nowarn() that doesn't print
> > an error message. Then we can convert the drivers that are poking around
> > for interrupts to use this new function instead. It isn't the same as a
> > platform_get_optional_irq() API because it returns an error when the irq
> > isn't there or we fail to parse something, but at least the error
> > message is gone.
>
> True.
>
> I still feel uneasy about pushing false positive error messages to
> users. Do you think your cocci-script could be updated to modify drivers
> which do not bail out when platform_get_irq() fails to use
> platform_get_irq_nowarn()? I'd think this would catch most of them?
>
> Or maybe the other way around? platform_get_irq_warn() and only convert
> those which print something?
Following clk, gpio, regulator, and reset, the functions should be called
platform_get_irq() and platform_get_irq_optional().
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- ge...@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
