Re: [PATCH v4 23/24] platform: Modify platform_get_irq_optional() to use resource

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 12:09:10PM -0700, Mark Hasemeyer wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 6, 2024 at 7:56 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 02:07:47PM -0700, Mark Hasemeyer wrote:

..

> > > +     ret = fwnode_irq_get_resource(fwnode, num, r);
> >
> > I still prefer this not to return positive value. Since you _require_ @r to be
> > not NULL, i.e. valid, the returning positive value makes no sense.
> >
> > > +     ret = ret < 0 ? ret : 0;
> > > +     if (!ret || ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > > +             goto out;
> 
> I agree. But echoing my response from v3 patch 24:
> - The fwnode patch is already reviewed and approved.
> - The fwnode patch uses of_irq_to_resource() which already existed and
> returns the irq number on success. The error handling translation will
> just get pushed to the fwnode subsystem unless of_irq_to_resource() is
> also modified which means updating 8 or so drivers that reference it.
> 
> I can either:
> -Leave it
> -Modify the fwnode subsystem to perform the error translation of
> of_irq_to_resource()
> -Modify the fwnode and OF subsystems and update all driver references
> 
> The fwnode and OF patches are already reviewed. I imagine coding
> changes would imply dropping any Reviewed-by tags and requesting
> another review?
> I'd really prefer to not blow up the patch series anymore, but if you
> feel strongly, we can come up with a solution.

fwnode is quite generic API and I won't fail it from day 1.
Yet we have already some deviations in fwnode/device vs. OF/ACPI cases
(first comes to mind is device_for_each_child_node() which assumes
 "availability").

So, I would prefer fwnode API to not inherit issues/features of OF specific
code. Maybe this can be considered as "yes, please update it".

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko