Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: tqmx86: really make IRQ optional

From: Matthias Schiffer <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: tqmx86: really make IRQ optional
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 15:44:38 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53e222fdbb3d488a99bb24d0205b064d3fe662b0.camel@ew.tq-group.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VcuD49UgkXCrPL3VKiOsx4qSDsf=zB2vp6yVS1aJCuc2w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 17:03 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 4:36 PM Matthias Schiffer
> <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com> wrote:
> > 
> > On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 15:39 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:37 PM Matthias Schiffer
> > > <matthias.schiffer@ew.tq-group.com> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 15:29 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > > I don't understand which part of the code is dead now. I assume the
> > > > `return irq` case is still useful for unexpected errors, or things like
> > > > EPROBE_DEFER? I'm not sure if EPROBE_DEFER is relevant for this driver,
> > > > but just ignoring the error code completely doesn't seem right to me.
> > > 
> > > platform_get_irq() AFAIK won't ever return such a code.
> > > So, basically your conditional is always false.
> > > 
> > > I would like to see the code path which makes my comment wrong.
> > > 
> > 
> > EPROBE_DEFER appears a few times in platform_get_irq_optional()
> > (drivers/base/platform.c), but it's possible that this is only relevant
> > for OF-based platforms and not x86.
> 
> Ah, okay, that's something I haven't paid attention to.
> 
> So the root cause of the your case is platform_get_irq_optional|()
> return code. I'm wondering why it can't return 0 instead of absent
> IRQ? Perhaps you need to fix it instead of lurking into each caller.
> 

Hi Andy,

what's the plan here? "driver core: platform: Make
platform_get_irq_optional() optional" had to be reverted because it
broke existing users of platform_get_irq_optional(). I'm not convinced
that a slightly more convenient API is worth going through the trouble
of fixing them all - I know we don't care much about out-of-tree
modules, but subtly changing the behaviour of such a function doesn't
seem like a good idea to me even if we review all in-tree users.

Should I just rebase my patches with the existing ENXIO handing (and
fix up the other issues that were noted), or do you intend to give the
platform_get_irq_optional() revamp another try?

Kind regards,
Matthias