Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:2 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:2;
Date:   Fri, 3 Nov 2023 08:41:40 +0200
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Chen Ni <nichen@iscas.ac.cn>, lee@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mfd: intel-lpss: Fix IRQ check
Message-ID: <20231103064140.GP17433@black.fi.intel.com>
References: <20231101062643.507983-1-nichen@iscas.ac.cn>
 <20231101070310.GF17433@black.fi.intel.com>
 <ZUIclOuVocLUUk7_@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20231101104717.GH17433@black.fi.intel.com>
 <ZUOYR1l9D5s3bI37@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZUOYR1l9D5s3bI37@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Nov 02, 2023 at 02:38:31PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > -	if (!info || !info->mem || info->irq <= 0)
> > > > > +	if (!info || !info->mem)
> > > > 
> > > > This check (info->irq <= 0) covers both "invalid" interrupt numbers
> > > > (that's the negative errno and 0 as no interrupt) so I don't see how
> > > > this change makes it any better and the changelog does not clarify it
> > > > either.
> > > 
> > > It makes sense. The IRQ here may not be 0. We should actually fix
> > > the PCI code to guarantee that (platform_get_irq() guarantees that
> > > in platform driver).
> > 
> > Yeah but I mean the check above handles any "invalid" interrupt number
> > just fine regardless. I don't see any point changing that.
> 
> The point is to have proper error code to be returned. Currently it's shadowed
> in this check.

Looking at this more, this patch actually introduces a bug.

We pass pci_dev->irq from intel-lpss-pci.c and that comes directly from
PCI core that assigns it in pci_read_irq(). This value is unsigned int
for starters so it is not designed to contain an error code, secondly it
can be 0 meaning "no IRQ" either if is SRIOV device or the interrupt
line is not assigned. I actually think SRIOV is a possibility for future
LPSS devices so we should be dealing with this properly.