Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform: make platform_get_irq_optional() optional

[Sergey Shtylyov]

On 1/13/22 12:45 AM, Mark Brown wrote:

[...]
> (Do we really need *all* the CCs here?)

   Yeah, 25 files were changed and that resulted in 75 persons/lists addressed.
I didn't expect such a wide audience myself... :-)

>> That convinces me, that platform_get_irq_optional() is a bad name. The
>> only difference to platform_get_irq is that it's silent. And returning
>> a dummy irq value (which would make it aligned with the other _optional
>> functions) isn't possible.

> There is regulator_get_optional() which is I believe the earliest of
> these APIs, it doesn't return a dummy either (and is silent too) - this

   Hm, I'm seeing it's rather noisy... :-)

> is because regulator_get() does return a dummy since it's the vastly
> common case that regulators must be physically present and them not
> being found is due to there being an error in the system description.
> It's unfortunate that we've ended up with these two different senses for
> _optional(), people frequently get tripped up by it.
> 
>>> To me it sounds much more logical for the driver to check if an
>>> optional irq is non-zero (available) or zero (not available), than to
>>> sprinkle around checks for -ENXIO. In addition, you have to remember
>>> that this one returns -ENXIO, while other APIs use -ENOENT or -ENOSYS
>>> (or some other error code) to indicate absence. I thought not having
>>> to care about the actual error code was the main reason behind the
>>> introduction of the *_optional() APIs.
> 
>> No, the main benefit of gpiod_get_optional() (and clk_get_optional()) is
>> that you can handle an absent GPIO (or clk) as if it were available.

   Hm, I've just looked at these and must note that they match 1:1 with
platform_get_irq_optional(). Unfortunately, we can't however behave the
same way in request_irq() -- because it has to support IRQ0 for the sake
of i8253 drivers in arch/...
 
> Similarly for the regulator API, kind of.

MBR, Sergey