On 2021/12/10 7:49, Damien Le Moal wrote:

On 2021/12/09 23:59, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

platform_get_irq() will print a message when it fails.
No need to repeat this.

While at it, drop redundant check for 0 as platform_get_irq() spills
out a big WARN() in such case.

The reason you should be able to remove the "if (!irq)" test is that
platform_get_irq() never returns 0. At least, that is what the function kdoc
says. But looking at platform_get_irq_optional(), which is called by
platform_get_irq(), the out label is:

	WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n");
	return ret;

So 0 will be returned as-is. That is rather weird. That should be fixed to
return -ENXIO:

	if (WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n"))
		return -ENXIO;
	return ret;

Otherwise, I do not think that removing the "if (!irq)" hunk is safe. no ?

Replying to myself :)
I replied before reading Sergei replies that points this out.

quoted

Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c | 7 +------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c b/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c
index 0910441321f7..1af642c84e7b 100644
--- a/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c
+++ b/drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c

@@ -579,13 +579,8 @@ int ahci_platform_init_host(struct platform_device *pdev,
 	int i, irq, n_ports, rc;
 
 	irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
-	if (irq < 0) {
-		if (irq != -EPROBE_DEFER)
-			dev_err(dev, "no irq\n");
+	if (irq < 0)
 		return irq;
-	}
-	if (!irq)
-		return -EINVAL;
 
 	hpriv->irq = irq;
 

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research