Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Jun 2014 11:54:05 +0200 | From | Andreas Larsson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 20/21] usb: use devm_irq_of_parse_and_map() where appropriate |
| |
On 2014-06-16 11:44, Nikita Yushchenko wrote: >>> 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?
Given that there are a lot of -EBUSY being returned in drivers/usb/host - not just in these error cases, maybe it is better to not touch this in this patch set.
Best regards, Andreas Larsson
| |