Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191016143142.28854-1-geert+renesas@glider.be>
 <5da7a675.1c69fb81.a888.0911@mx.google.com> <CAMuHMdXnTOaM+4SUkzpYXNeFbJtaG_kRzFLJRhVPCVNcOUB0qA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdXnTOaM+4SUkzpYXNeFbJtaG_kRzFLJRhVPCVNcOUB0qA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 17 Oct 2019 07:51:15 -0500
Message-ID: <CAL_JsqL9YPowxntVPax868hi+sN3vgCa2aSSySzjg==--c7aDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: unittest: Use platform_get_irq_optional() for
 non-existing interrupt
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:59 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 1:23 AM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org> wrote:
> > Quoting Geert Uytterhoeven (2019-10-16 07:31:42)
> > > diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> > > index 9efae29722588a35..34da22f8b0660989 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
> > > @@ -1121,7 +1121,7 @@ static void __init of_unittest_platform_populate(void)
> > >                 np = of_find_node_by_path("/testcase-data/testcase-device2");
> > >                 pdev = of_find_device_by_node(np);
> > >                 unittest(pdev, "device 2 creation failed\n");
> > > -               irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > > +               irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
> > >                 unittest(irq < 0 && irq != -EPROBE_DEFER,
> >
> > This is a test to make sure that irq failure doesn't return probe defer.
> > Do we want to silence the error message that we're expecting to see?
>
> I think so.  We're not interested in error messages for expected failures,
> only in error messages for unittest() failures.

The unittests start with a warning that error messages will be seen.
OTOH, we didn't get a message here before.

Rob