On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 11:29:07PM +0300, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:

On 12/9/21 10:22 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

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

   And? IRQ0 is still returned! :-(

It should not be returned in the first place.

   But it still is, despite the WARN(), right?

So, you admit that there is a code which does that?

   I admit *what*?! That platfrom_get_irq() and its ilk return IRQ0 while they
shouldn't? =)

That there is a code beneath platform_get_irq() that returns 0, yes.

quoted

That code should be fixed first. Have you sent a patch?

   Which code?! You got me totally muddled. =)

Above mentioned.

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

-	if (!irq)
-		return -EINVAL;

   This is prermature -- let's wait till my patch that stops returning IRQ0 from
platform_get_irq() and friends gets merged....

What patch?

   https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=163623041902285

quoted

Does it fix platform_get_irq_optional()?

   Of course! :-)

Can you share link to lore.kernel.org, please?
It will make much easier to try and comment.

   I don't know how to uise it yet, and I'm a little busy with other IRQ0 issues ATM,
so I'm afraid you're on your own here...

lore.kernel.org is the official mailing list archive for Linux kernel work
AFAIU. Other sites may do whatever they want with that information, so -->
they are unreliable. If you wish to follow the better process, use
lore.kernel.org. Understanding how it works takes no more than 5 minutes
by engineer with your kind of experience with Linux kernel development.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko