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;
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 17:36:18 +0530
From:   afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
To:     Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>,
        Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>,
        linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()
Message-ID: <20200227120618.GA6312@afzalpc>
References: <alpine.LNX.2.22.394.2002270908380.8@nippy.intranet>
 <a682c89d-baf2-3d3c-647f-a07b2a146c9f@linux-m68k.org>
 <alpine.LNX.2.22.394.2002261637400.8@nippy.intranet>
 <caa5686a-5be3-5848-fdee-36f54237ccb6@linux-m68k.org>
 <alpine.LNX.2.22.394.2002261151220.9@nippy.intranet>
 <73c3ad08-963d-fea2-91d7-b06e4ef8d3ef@linux-m68k.org>
 <20200227081805.GA5746@afzalpc>
 <CAMuHMdWVVWaoHA1Tie5APYBq3Pa3s4BAoWN1jAACAZZS65UA7w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdWVVWaoHA1Tie5APYBq3Pa3s4BAoWN1jAACAZZS65UA7w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Geert,

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 09:32:46AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:18 AM afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Since most of the existing setup_irq() didn't even check & handle
> > error return, my first thought was just s/setup_irq/request_irq, it
> > was easier from scripting pointing of view. i felt uncomfortable doing
> > nothing in case of error. Also noted that request_irq() definition has
> > a "__much_check", so decided to add it.
> 
> Most (all?) of the code calling setup_irq() is very old, and most of the calls
> happen very early, so any such failures are hard failures that prevent the
> system from booting at all.  Hence printing a message may be futile, as it
> may happen before the console has been initialized (modulo early-printk).

The main reason to at least acknowledge the return value was due to
__much_check in request_irq() definition, though w/ the compiler that
i used, there were no warnings, i feared that it might warn w/
some other compilers & in some cases (may be W=[1-3] ?).

Also as most are tick timers, if request_irq() fails, system would die
in that case. But i have seen (iirc in MIPS), in the same execution
sequence multiple setup_irq() invocations, so every instance might not
be unavoidable for system boot.

For tick timer cases, a BUG() might be suitable, but i didn't even
think of that option as that is a recipe for getting trashed from head
penguin (though he would not care trivial patches like this), same
scenario w/ adding warnings.

> Just my 2 €c.

That is my 2 paise, but per exchange rate it will be far less ;)

Regards
afzal