On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 09:10:14PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 10:54:48PM +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> > This patch is based on the former Andy Shevchenko's patch:
> >
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210331144526.19439-1-andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com/
> >
> > 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...
>
> The difference to gpiod_get_optional (and most other *_optional) is that
> you can use the NULL value as if it were a valid GPIO.
>
> As this isn't given with for irqs, I don't think changing the return
> value has much sense.
We actually want platform_get_irq_optional() to look different to all
the other _optional() methods because it is not equivalent. If it
looks the same, developers will assume it is the same, and get
themselves into trouble.
> My suggestion would be to keep the return value of
> platform_get_irq_optional() as is, but rename it to
> platform_get_irq_silent() to get rid of the expectation invoked by
> the naming similarity that motivated you to change
> platform_get_irq_optional().
This is a good idea.
Andrew
_______________________________________________
Openipmi-developer mailing list
Openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
