From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6D44C4332F for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 09:51:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S237222AbhKTJyq (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Nov 2021 04:54:46 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:35226 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S237208AbhKTJyq (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Nov 2021 04:54:46 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-x132.google.com (mail-lf1-x132.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::132]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AADEC061574; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 01:51:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-lf1-x132.google.com with SMTP id b1so54781826lfs.13; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 01:51:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject:content-language:to :cc:references:from:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KurvDeK1OCCTbWY8LAh9vhNWC4pm8h+CrIfTiM1/sFQ=; b=UlJc3W8bLVIjECrs0I8CRg1Jcr/3OOXlyFaJGE+jBdeQacZ/SSFYvOYQlcdW0xn6a2 hxRXOfINNjskmWKxAE42dO0uxG9LEuDiTQZm7ZDYNj/FJ+qr0VOUUhfa7x5AICRG9NWH zLEPGD/KikArkqBlSv24L3g59WVdkPtz28guLgilN7Ins8pvhhQqnkZtuovPPEvBjNKM DybA/UioMNshpxsgyeBaW+2Z+KRJC5QDHBERSGrNqexN02FsLTCZAZK/omlXdhcEU+CI RqM6UylXhP4Ms831WeK5dDqsm6bHtCUnY82z3ZMGkVQu8RC/ZS8VWZmnER1la+/OaveW THog== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KurvDeK1OCCTbWY8LAh9vhNWC4pm8h+CrIfTiM1/sFQ=; b=GZWhBa+eJ4D7943DowMjaIDd4i2XdnxNeA29pGb4G/fvczFJHQki8LGxDNxWAy60ig 3lUHy9HhGkviu9y1mCqfQjsZ8P2Ne61u0+nr+A/qI4j2HW8c/ieMXTUiPLBqWjSuDnqY fB0K2ADKTaNhfgnC4Z9vZzRdrnWetMs5POxVVLIzYSdQT8BavhCeFZFRSPZmLTKp4kio P8/ytrrXvTKDLW/raE5RoAG9QBDxJEIFVUpj2sHthK+p3JzTbXAbr7RQU7SCf4S92nmD 7O4a5o/JzxvmgOOJF5ar6vkMXI+3f30UIoYid7ZnzO/EpTswPOCAycOnDS6aXBO+PA9j m2ag== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Vfyxh8xzlp6M71yJrvwffxQtsM7AWCv0gQNbvxnGkxRdXBHle ogD/XJF4e6UGaC7ogK57Axw= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx/6t6eNVFJY+Z1BLiHLUtI7q+X4uBmxvgGkomS92Z+IWNnzF60Jv5zfJkSuaU5fjmqW7OEkA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:398b:: with SMTP id j11mr38760989lfu.170.1637401900940; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 01:51:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([178.176.76.156]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s17sm312122lfe.10.2021.11.20.01.51.38 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 20 Nov 2021 01:51:40 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <361abc20-e01e-3c3a-3217-2e7ed6cb3f76@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 12:51:24 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/2] sata_fsl: fix warning in remove_proc_entry when rmmod sata_fsl Content-Language: en-US To: Damien Le Moal , Baokun Li , axboe@kernel.dk, tj@kernel.org, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: yebin10@huawei.com, yukuai3@huawei.com, Hulk Robot References: <20211119041128.2436889-1-libaokun1@huawei.com> <20211119041128.2436889-3-libaokun1@huawei.com> <283712c0-bab7-de13-fc27-6ae2e6f9532f@gmail.com> From: Sergei Shtylyov Organization: Brain-dead Software In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On 20.11.2021 9:08, Damien Le Moal wrote: > On 11/20/21 00:43, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c b/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c >>> index 30759fd1c3a2..011daac4a14e 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c >>> +++ b/drivers/ata/sata_fsl.c >>> @@ -1493,7 +1493,7 @@ static int sata_fsl_probe(struct platform_device *ofdev) >>> host_priv->ssr_base = ssr_base; >>> host_priv->csr_base = csr_base; >>> >>> - irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(ofdev->dev.of_node, 0); >>> + irq = platform_get_irq(ofdev, 0); >>> if (!irq) { >> >> if (irq < 0) { >> >> platform_get_irq() returns negative error codes, not 0 on failure. > > Sergei, > > By the way, the kdoc comment for platform_get_irq() says: > > "Return: non-zero IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure." > > But irq 0 is valid, isn't it ? So shouldn't this be changed to something > like: > > "Return: IRQ number on success, negative error number on failure." No, it's not valid (the current code WARN()s about it) and won't be returned anymore after my patch [1] gets applied. [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=163623041902285 MBR, Sergei