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 7C040C433F5 for ; Sat, 20 Nov 2021 06:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229578AbhKTGL1 (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Nov 2021 01:11:27 -0500 Received: from esa6.hgst.iphmx.com ([216.71.154.45]:14061 "EHLO esa6.hgst.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229535AbhKTGL0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Nov 2021 01:11:26 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wdc.com; i=@wdc.com; q=dns/txt; s=dkim.wdc.com; t=1637388505; x=1668924505; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HEd3/uHrcFEOQzwerh2/2EB6Y+yQu9KO9X0qYOqqaew=; b=qoMmezU/gczS0qBos0HbSL9DUbb1g1KGO8Mbn+Y9ic7ONzMQY2xyF3JH xKTWzrlo0FNGAFTYBGLPegKPE6+YI0giYjBS01WISWGAqfxCuy3RGPYBf tGlhf9ShZwWnoPCxrdM4oolIAjlrtCqmEjJp8agYJHb658JdVWQzD6SKb EqKp3uAj7Jjsg6Qtyc6Ir5BOJ/vOoa/t+b9fF51B5tBLgBIxoJnKYOUSh vY4kjZXUVpwjLy3km9UkrOoXZFChiVR7Wu3An+yGzzCNLS8wpnr4mG2Se JdV8FQ4M8ik+5Egqmd4UpBztFuUkyMurplMNExmNsWgvFQfILoK8SjARr Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.87,250,1631548800"; d="scan'208";a="187173863" Received: from h199-255-45-15.hgst.com (HELO uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com) ([199.255.45.15]) by ob1.hgst.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2021 14:08:12 +0800 IronPort-SDR: kjkG2RcjZHptkbkT1mZuhcIqcCHc9jqBdWuDHtF/SmcBC7kgi0xejyfpnp9oRFsUbeCfSRa92h 6/HvglhfNFiBtIYpKh+kUAz4Dvre0CtQ+flBd1JryVCEqFmKJRr6ePJWObWVOFm74fB+VfpEGL hlcf7QCPqjK3tyStFrca91G4ZU5pslSk4rb4/JHOzN0NgkIBvK7dQbh23pwDqRCvPimKA7dare pp8G7pV9iOoUUWkZEqtGIBLuvqpND+5GK6H3Dv23Lc9illIZck3fF3Jhlzz4x0qkPTcNlRUJrZ xULnDrrbQOjamX4/vcG9vzZC Received: from uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com ([10.248.3.37]) by uls-op-cesaep02.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Nov 2021 21:41:36 -0800 IronPort-SDR: ACi9oRRrV+8Rt+ZBGNjG+gHEArq4Fst+s1z2wRwZziV3lBH+sm53nT9jrOQBWRKRSntoslfVJr /OC7fhdF2nigFZh1uNvjTjoxJtQObam791OESfW5pgV9BWQBMHGWgeL/a6HgM3q3V7Ww8O6YtA uQztDbK+HiTMdiVCOKFvedo2askRnrqGcn5W8mnx5FXcprOLYPefCtG83GBopu7mtuGZKHwKV3 kKM8Fs3rmuOdc7mCcmwdZUNX31QycOqc8Nrke6AaOwPIE+40xmuJO1g1h6a0RSrYu2T29On7yI LBE= WDCIronportException: Internal Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com ([10.3.10.180]) by uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Nov 2021 22:08:12 -0800 Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com [127.0.0.1]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Hx34B6c9Wz1RtVy for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 22:08:10 -0800 (PST) Authentication-Results: usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass reason="pass (just generated, assumed good)" header.d=opensource.wdc.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d= opensource.wdc.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :in-reply-to:organization:from:references:to:content-language :subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id; s=dkim; t= 1637388489; x=1639980490; bh=HEd3/uHrcFEOQzwerh2/2EB6Y+yQu9KO9X0 qYOqqaew=; b=C4fCGAjKgSv+98wZhegtNQYFGIpXvA8qJvetsEKZbX9XhHlxtrG G/Y91GId3w/CJ3a9x5anyDLmpGzSk+hgDGfytpRhqhpMuWQHJ042Y/zKYJkfKeXF KqOxqE44ehwtH4k3gIufJU2BrFgTxSBsSjlbfv1L3guE6gsgmJ3n/4Qjd1Ca3oRC RtXmLFhSNARDQvzSZBwjwkqbOmc5dvjY+vn6fyZtCvHOf5TztAtrgbNFjvhxsvGl /SYmiZ/VvCCn3UvmCr5o1d/48jdsq7vHlRfNPuOUomgBQbHdS4OW25HKU8pghmE9 Mq9zlh/jKhFMY9yLc34uDyVTxXfzqivr2Vg== X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com Received: from usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com ([127.0.0.1]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id yH7rF7BTP9D8 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 22:08:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.225.163.105] (unknown [10.225.163.105]) by usg-ed-osssrv.wdc.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Hx3476X3kz1RtVl; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 22:08:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2021 15:08:06 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.3.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/2] sata_fsl: fix warning in remove_proc_entry when rmmod sata_fsl Content-Language: en-US To: Sergei Shtylyov , 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: Damien Le Moal Organization: Western Digital Research In-Reply-To: <283712c0-bab7-de13-fc27-6ae2e6f9532f@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org 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." -- Damien Le Moal Western Digital Research