Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] ath9k: Use platform_get_irq() to get the interrupt

From: Kalle Valo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 10:05:57 +0200

Kalle Valo <[email-masked]> writes:

> [email-masked] writes:
>
>> From: Minghao Chi <[email-masked]>
>>
>> It is not recommened to use platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ)
>> for requesting IRQ's resources any more, as they can be not ready yet in
>> case of DT-booting.
>>
>> platform_get_irq() instead is a recommended way for getting IRQ even if
>> it was not retrieved earlier.
>>
>> It also makes code simpler because we're getting "int" value right away
>> and no conversion from resource to int is required.
>>
>> Reported-by: Zeal Robot <[email-masked]>
>> Signed-off-by: Minghao Chi <[email-masked]>
>> ---
>> v1->v2:
>>   - Retain dev_err() call on failure
>>
>>  drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c | 8 +++-----
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c
>> index cdefb8e2daf1..28c45002c115 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/ahb.c
>> @@ -98,14 +98,12 @@ static int ath_ahb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>  		return -ENOMEM;
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, 0);
>> -	if (res == NULL) {
>> +	irq = platform_get_resource(pdev, 0);
>
> Is this really correct? Should it be platform_get_irq()?
>
> Do you compile test your patches? That's mandatory.

Also please fix your email setup, I get an error for this address:

<[email-masked]>: host mxde.zte.com.cn[209.9.37.26] said: 550 5.1.1 User
    unknown id=622EE16E.000 (in reply to RCPT TO command)

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches