Re: [PATCH] irqchip/renesas-irqc: Use platform_get_irq_optional() to get the interrupt

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:45 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 9:49 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 1:59 AM Lad, Prabhakar
> > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 5:40 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 7:28 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> > > > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 4:46 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 9:52 AM Lad Prabhakar
> > > > > > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > ret = platform_get_irq_optional(...);
> > > > > > if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENXIO)
> > > > > >   return ret;
> > > > > > if (ret > 0)
> > > > > >   ...we got it...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It will allow the future API fix of platform_get_irq_optional() to be
> > > > > > really optional.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Later patch [0] (merged into -next) does check for -ENXIO first.
> > > > >
> > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211216182121.5323-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/t/
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that it doesn't consider 0 as no IRQ.
> > > >
> > > Can you please point me to the discussion/patch where this API change
> > > is considered/discussed. Just to clarify now the new API for
> > > platform_get_irq_optional() will return "0" in case there is no
> > > interrupt and not not -ENXIO anymore?
> >
> > The longest one happened here:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/20211209145937.77719-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> >
> > It has links to some other discussions on the topic.
> >
> > > When will this patch be merged for the new api, so that I can base my
> > > patches on top of it to avoid more changes?
> >
> > You can simply imply that, I dunno when it gets merged (from my point
> > of view the users should be fixed first, and since you are adding
> > users, the burden is increasing).
>
> Not only users (drivers), but also providers (architecture-specific code).
> IRQ zero is still valid on some architectures, e.g. on SH[1].

Are we talking about vIRQ?
And users are fine with a big warning?

My understanding is that the architecture code there is broken. It
needs to be fixed to use IRQ domains and all that machinery instead of
what it does.

0 is "no IRQ" in Linux.

> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/CAMuHMdUg3=q7gyaVHP0XcYUOo3PQUUv8Hc8wp5faVQ+bTBpg4A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko