Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/7 v2] net: ethernet: i825xx: Fix platform_get_irq's error checking | From | Sergei Shtylyov <> | Date | Wed, 6 Dec 2017 15:19:24 +0300 |
| |
On 12/05/2017 06:49 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> From: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com> >>> Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:18:20 +0530 >>> >>>> @@ -120,9 +120,10 @@ static int sni_82596_probe(struct platform_device >>>> *dev) >>>> netdevice->dev_addr[5] = readb(eth_addr + 0x06); >>>> iounmap(eth_addr); >>>> - if (!netdevice->irq) { >>>> + if (netdevice->irq <= 0) { >>>> printk(KERN_ERR "%s: IRQ not found for i82596 at 0x%lx\n", >>>> __FILE__, netdevice->base_addr); >>>> + retval = netdevice->irq ? netdevice->irq : -ENODEV; >>>> goto probe_failed; >>>> } >>> Ok, thinking about this some more... >>> >>> It is impossible to use platform_get_irq() without every single call >>> site having this funny: >>> >>> ret = val ? val : -ENODEV; >>> >>> sequence. >>> >>> This is unnecessary duplication and it is also error prone, so I >>> really think this logic belongs in platform_get_irq() itself. It can >>> convert '0' to -ENODEV and that way we need no special logic in the >>> callers at all. >> platform_get_irq() will return 0 only for sparc, If sparc initialize >> platform >> data irq[PROMINTR_MAX] as zero. Otherwise platform_get_irq() will >> never return >> 0. It will return either IRQ number or error (as negative number). But >> I am getting >> review comment by reviewer/maintainer in other subsystem to add check >> for >> zero. So I have done same changes here. Please correct me if i am >> wrong. > > If you make the change that I suggest, you instead can check for
I assume such change is needed only for the SPARC-specific section of platform_get_irq()?
> '-ENODEV' to mean no IRQ.
No specific error check is needed, just irq < 0 check should be enough... Also, looking at platform_get_irq(), -ENXIO should be returned in this case.
MBR, Sergei
| |