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