Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
To:     andy.shevchenko@gmail.com
Cc:     oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
        brgl@bgdev.pl, palmer@dabbelt.com, paul.walmsley@sifive.com,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jiasheng Jiang <jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gpio: ath79: Add missing check for platform_get_irq
Date:   Wed,  7 Jun 2023 15:08:19 +0800
Message-Id: <20230607070819.48553-1-jiasheng@iscas.ac.cn>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:46:36 +0800 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:28:17PM +0300, andy.shevchenko@gmail.com kirjoitti:
>> Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 11:18:41AM +0800, Jiasheng Jiang kirjoitti:
>> 
>> Is this v4?
>>

I will submit a v4.
 
>> > Add the missing check for platform_get_irq() and return error
>> > if it fails.
>> > The returned error code will be dealed with in
>> > module_platform_driver(ath79_gpio_driver) and the driver will not
>> > be registered.
>> 
>> No, this functional change and has not to be for the fixes unless _this_ is the
>> regression you are fixing. Did the driver work before at some point as after
>> this change?

I will remove the fixes tag in v4.

> 
> To be more clear, answer to the following questions:
> 1) does driver work with wrong DT configuration?
> 2a) if yes, does it make sense, i.e. the hardware functioning usefully?
> 2b) if yes, can we guarantee there are no broken configurations in the wild?
> 
> Depending on the answers correct your code and/or commit message.
> 
>> Otherwise you have to _justify_ that this functional change won't break
>> existing setups (with broked IRQ in Device Tree, for example).

Sorry, I do not quite understand what you mean.
I have no idea how these questions are related to my patch.
Do you mean I should not fail the ->probe() if there is wrong IRQ numbering in the DT?
Please tell me the relationship between these questions and my patch.

Thanks,
Jiasheng