Re: [PATCH] irqchip/renesas-irqc: Use platform_get_irq_optional() to get the interrupt

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 12:02 PM Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 10:57 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 11:45 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 9:49 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 1:59 AM Lad, Prabhakar
> > > > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 5:40 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 7:28 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> > > > > > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sat, Dec 25, 2021 at 4:46 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > > > > > > <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 9:52 AM Lad Prabhakar
> > > > > > > > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ret = platform_get_irq_optional(...);
> > > > > > > > if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENXIO)
> > > > > > > >   return ret;
> > > > > > > > if (ret > 0)
> > > > > > > >   ...we got it...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It will allow the future API fix of platform_get_irq_optional() to be
> > > > > > > > really optional.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Later patch [0] (merged into -next) does check for -ENXIO first.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211216182121.5323-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/t/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem is that it doesn't consider 0 as no IRQ.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Can you please point me to the discussion/patch where this API change
> > > > > is considered/discussed. Just to clarify now the new API for
> > > > > platform_get_irq_optional() will return "0" in case there is no
> > > > > interrupt and not not -ENXIO anymore?
> > > >
> > > > The longest one happened here:
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ide/20211209145937.77719-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u
> > > >
> > > > It has links to some other discussions on the topic.
> > > >
> > > > > When will this patch be merged for the new api, so that I can base my
> > > > > patches on top of it to avoid more changes?
> > > >
> > > > You can simply imply that, I dunno when it gets merged (from my point
> > > > of view the users should be fixed first, and since you are adding
> > > > users, the burden is increasing).
> > >
> > > Not only users (drivers), but also providers (architecture-specific code).
> > > IRQ zero is still valid on some architectures, e.g. on SH[1].
> >
> > Are we talking about vIRQ?
> > And users are fine with a big warning?
>
> The warning is only seen when a driver uses platorm_get_irq{,_optional}().
> There are several other ways to obtain interrupts, avoiding the
> big warning.
>
> > My understanding is that the architecture code there is broken. It
> > needs to be fixed to use IRQ domains and all that machinery instead of
> > what it does.
> >
> > 0 is "no IRQ" in Linux.
> >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/CAMuHMdUg3=q7gyaVHP0XcYUOo3PQUUv8Hc8wp5faVQ+bTBpg4A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> BTW, perhaps the IRQ subsystem should switch from integer IRQ numbers
> to an opaque object, like was done for GPIO before?

Hasn't it been done a long time ago?
IIRC somewhere in ~2014 timeframe.

> The IRQ subsystem
> is one of the few (only?) subsystems still using plain integers.

It uses opaque objects for which the plain integer is a unique key.

> That
> way we don't need this two-step platform_get_irq_optional() conversion
> (step 1: check for both -ENXIO and zero, step 2: drop the check for
> -ENXIO).


-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko