Re: [PATCH 20/21] usb: use devm_irq_of_parse_and_map() where appropriate

[Nikita Yushchenko]

>> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
>> b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
>> index 495b6fb..666c03e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
>> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ehci-grlib.c
>> @@ -111,11 +111,11 @@ static int ehci_hcd_grlib_probe(struct
>> platform_device *op)
>>       hcd->rsrc_start = res.start;
>>       hcd->rsrc_len = resource_size(&res);
>>
>> -    irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(dn, 0);
>> -    if (irq == NO_IRQ) {
>> -        dev_err(&op->dev, "%s: irq_of_parse_and_map failed\n",
>> +    irq = devm_irq_of_parse_and_map(&op->dev, dn, 0);
>> +    if (irq <= 0) {
>> +        dev_err(&op->dev, "%s: devm_irq_of_parse_and_map failed\n",
>>               __FILE__);
>> -        rv = -EBUSY;
>> +        rv = irq ? irq : -EINVAL;
> 
> Here and in more places below you change the return value from -EBUSY to
> -EINVAL when irq == 0. These changes and the reason for them is not
> something that is commented upon in the commit message. Maybe these
> changes were not intended or should be in a separate patch?

Although errno codes are quite unspecific, I can't think a valid reason
to return -EBUSY on [devm_]irq_of_parse_and_map() failure. It could be
-EINVAL or -ENODEV, but not -EBUSY ...

Since changing line that sets error code anyway, I decided to change
-EBUST to -ENODEV.

But I agree that this is not the topic of the patch.

IS it better to remove this change from changeset alltogether, or to
mention it in commit's log message?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/