On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 17:03 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 4:36 PM Matthias Schiffer
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 15:39 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 3:37 PM Matthias Schiffer
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2021-03-31 at 15:29 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

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