MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220104164504.24707-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> <CAHp75Ve+0VmfU7GhC=AjZ3J1J6KtGko2YAenA9mXCSCVrcuX5w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Ve+0VmfU7GhC=AjZ3J1J6KtGko2YAenA9mXCSCVrcuX5w@mail.gmail.com>
From:   "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 17:55:32 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+V-a8uvuuk_t43COPVnaf2cFOhMxuPkK1Bj5OO9DtygTpy1ag@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] soc: ti: smartreflex: Use platform_get_irq_optional()
 to get the interrupt
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>,
        Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>,
        Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi Andy,

Thank you for the review.

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:47 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 6:45 PM Lad Prabhakar
> <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> wrote:
> >
> > platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, ..) relies on static
> > allocation of IRQ resources in DT core code, this causes an issue
> > when using hierarchical interrupt domains using "interrupts" property
> > in the node as this bypasses the hierarchical setup and messes up the
> > irq chaining.
> >
> > In preparation for removal of static setup of IRQ resource from DT core
> > code use platform_get_irq_optional().
> >
> > While at it return 0 instead of returning ret in the probe success path.
>
> ...
>
> > +       ret = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
> > +       if (ret < 0 && ret != -ENXIO)
> > +               return dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, ret, "%s: failed to get IRQ resource\n", __func__);
>
> Sorry, I haven't noticed that you are using __func__ in the message.
> Please don't. It shows either that the message is not unique (so make
> the message unique enough in this driver) or the redundancy of the
> __func__ (it doesn't add any value, but noise).
>
Thanks for the pointer, I was just keeping the messages in-sync with the driver.

Cheers,
Prabhakar