Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1641996862-26960-1-git-send-email-akhilrajeev@nvidia.com>
 <1641996862-26960-4-git-send-email-akhilrajeev@nvidia.com>
 <CAHp75Vd=gxF9jFMvRw3qM9rfsxxCsO8qYXKVheuhjOV7ypU9og@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM5PR12MB18509C555A8A6F5891F0CC28C05A9@DM5PR12MB1850.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAHp75VfVJo=8FPX_Pw15X5B3awFXpuEq+=LryxB6M4Ub-YJ7uA@mail.gmail.com> <DM5PR12MB185098D36F665AC5702D47DDC05A9@DM5PR12MB1850.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <DM5PR12MB185098D36F665AC5702D47DDC05A9@DM5PR12MB1850.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jan 2022 12:43:02 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfVt0b+rBTfvTTj4-M11DrM2EGdqb4NNNTq0ApvR+gpDg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] i2c: smbus: Use device_*() functions instead of of_*()
To:     Akhil R <akhilrajeev@nvidia.com>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Uwe_Kleine=2DK=C3=B6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@amd.com>,
        Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@nvidia.com>,
        linux-i2c <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@linaro.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:29 PM Akhil R <akhilrajeev@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> > ...
> >
> > > > This change reveals potential issue:
> > > >
> > > > > -               irq = of_irq_get_byname(adapter->dev.of_node, "smbus_alert");
> > > > > +               irq = device_irq_get_byname(adapter->dev.parent,
> > "smbus_alert");
> > > >
> > > > >                 if (irq <= 0)
> > > >
> > > > I guess this '= 0' part should be fixed first.
> > >
> > > '0' is a failure as per the documentation of of_irq_get_byname() as well as
> > > of_irq_get(). The case is different for acpi_irq_get(), but it is handled in
> > > fwnode_irq_get(). If I understood it right, a return value of '0' should be
> > > considered a failure here.
> >
> > Depends. I have no idea what the original code does here. But
> > returning an error or 0 from this function seems confusing to me.
> >
> The description in of_irq_get*() says -
> /* Return: Linux IRQ number on success, or 0 on the IRQ mapping failure, or
>  * -EPROBE_DEFER if the IRQ domain is not yet created, or error code in case
>  * of any other failure.
>  */
> As I see from the code of fwnode_irq_get(), which is used in this case, returns
> either the return value of of_irq_get() or error code from acpi_irq_get() when
> it fails, or res.start if it didn't fail. I guess, any of these would not be 0 unless
> there is an error.

of_irq_get*() seems inconsistent...

Uwe, what do you think?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko