[PATCH] soc: qcom: ipa: Remove superfluous error message around platform_get_irq()

From: Tan Zhongjun <redacted>

The platform_get_irq() prints error message telling that interrupt is
missing,hence there is no need to duplicated that message in the
drivers.

Signed-off-by: Tan Zhongjun <redacted>
---
 drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c | 5 +----
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c b/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c
index 34b68dc43886..93270e50b6b3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c

@@ -177,11 +177,8 @@ static int ipa_smp2p_irq_init(struct ipa_smp2p *smp2p, const char *name,
 	int ret;
 
 	ret = platform_get_irq_byname(smp2p->ipa->pdev, name);
-	if (ret <= 0) {
-		dev_err(dev, "DT error %d getting \"%s\" IRQ property\n",
-			ret, name);
+	if (ret <= 0)
 		return ret ? : -EINVAL;
-	}
 	irq = ret;
 
 	ret = request_threaded_irq(irq, NULL, handler, 0, name, smp2p);

-- 
2.17.1

From:  Zhongjun Tan <redacted>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:01:18 +0800

Applied, but this code still rejects an irq of zero which is a valid irq number.

Hello:

This patch was applied to netdev/net-next.git (refs/heads/master):

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:01:18 +0800 you wrote:

From: Tan Zhongjun <redacted>

The platform_get_irq() prints error message telling that interrupt is
missing,hence there is no need to duplicated that message in the
drivers.

Signed-off-by: Tan Zhongjun <redacted>

[...]

Here is the summary with links:
  - soc: qcom: ipa: Remove superfluous error message around platform_get_irq()
    https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/950fd045d76c

You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html

On 6/10/21 4:11 PM, David Miller wrote:

From:  Zhongjun Tan <redacted>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:01:18 +0800

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c b/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c
index 34b68dc43886..93270e50b6b3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c

@@ -177,11 +177,8 @@ static int ipa_smp2p_irq_init(struct ipa_smp2p *smp2p, const char *name,
  	int ret;
  
  	ret = platform_get_irq_byname(smp2p->ipa->pdev, name);
-	if (ret <= 0) {
-		dev_err(dev, "DT error %d getting \"%s\" IRQ property\n",
-			ret, name);
+	if (ret <= 0)

Applied, but this code still rejects an irq of zero which is a valid irq number.

It rejects IRQ 0 intentionally.  And if 0 is returned, there
will now be no message printed by the platform code.

As I recall, I looked for a *long* time to see whether IRQ 0
was a valid IRQ number in Linux.  One reason I even questioned
it is that NO_IRQ is defined with value 0 on some architectures
(though not for Arm).  I even asked Rob Herring about privately
it a few years back and he suggested I shouldn't allow 0.

Yes, it *looked* like IRQ 0 could be a valid return.  But I
decided it was safer to just reject it, on the assumption
that it's unlikely to be returned (I don't believe it is
or ever will be used as the IRQ for SMP2P).

If you are certain it's valid, and should be allowed, I
have no objection to changing that "<=" to be "<".

					-Alex

PS  A quick search found this oldie:
       https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/no_irq.html

On Thu, 10 Jun 2021 16:38:43 -0500
Alex Elder [off-list ref] wrote:

On 6/10/21 4:11 PM, David Miller wrote:

quoted

From:  Zhongjun Tan <redacted>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2021 22:01:18 +0800
  

quoted

diff --git a/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c

b/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c index 34b68dc43886..93270e50b6b3
100644 --- a/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c

+++ b/drivers/net/ipa/ipa_smp2p.c

@@ -177,11 +177,8 @@ static int ipa_smp2p_irq_init(struct

ipa_smp2p *smp2p, const char *name, int ret;
  
  	ret = platform_get_irq_byname(smp2p->ipa->pdev, name);
-	if (ret <= 0) {
-		dev_err(dev, "DT error %d getting \"%s\" IRQ
property\n",
-			ret, name);
+	if (ret <= 0)  

Applied, but this code still rejects an irq of zero which is a
valid irq number.  

It rejects IRQ 0 intentionally.  And if 0 is returned, there
will now be no message printed by the platform code.

As I recall, I looked for a *long* time to see whether IRQ 0
was a valid IRQ number in Linux.  One reason I even questioned
it is that NO_IRQ is defined with value 0 on some architectures
(though not for Arm).  I even asked Rob Herring about privately
it a few years back and he suggested I shouldn't allow 0.

Yes, it *looked* like IRQ 0 could be a valid return.  But I
decided it was safer to just reject it, on the assumption
that it's unlikely to be returned (I don't believe it is
or ever will be used as the IRQ for SMP2P).

If you are certain it's valid, and should be allowed, I
have no objection to changing that "<=" to be "<".

					-Alex

PS  A quick search found this oldie:
       https://yarchive.net/comp/linux/no_irq.html

I think so , It is better to change "<=" to be "<".