On Sat, Jan 15, 2022 at 04:45:39PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 03:04:38PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 08:43:58PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

quoted

quoted

It'd certainly be good to name anything that doesn't correspond to one
of the existing semantics for the API (!) something different rather
than adding yet another potentially overloaded meaning.

It seems we're (at least) three who agree about this. Here is a patch
fixing the name.

And similar number of people are on the other side.

If someone already opposed to the renaming (and not only the name) I
must have missed that.

So you think it's a good idea to keep the name
platform_get_irq_optional() despite the "not found" value returned by it
isn't usable as if it were a normal irq number?

I meant that on the other side people who are in favour of Sergey's patch.
Since that I commented already that I opposed the renaming being a standalone
change.

Do you agree that we have several issues with platform_get_irq*() APIs?

1. The unfortunate naming
2. The vIRQ0 handling: a) WARN() followed by b) returned value 0
3. The specific cookie for "IRQ not found, while no error happened" case


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko