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.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... > > > > Reported-by: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schif...@ew.tq-group.com> > > Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtyl...@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. > Apart from that, I think the subject is badly chosen. With "Make > somefunc() optional" I would expect that you introduce a Kconfig symbol > that results in the function not being available when disabled. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko _______________________________________________ Openipmi-developer mailing list Openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
