Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] platform: make platform_get_irq_optional() optional (summary)

From: Sergey Shtylyov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:42:09 +0300

On 1/19/22 2:33 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

[...]
>>>>> A possible compromise: We can have both. We rename
>>>>> platform_get_irq_optional() to platform_get_irq_silent() (or
>>>>> platform_get_irq_silently() if this is preferred) and once all users are
>>>>> are changed (which can be done mechanically), we reintroduce a
>>>>> platform_get_irq_optional() with Sergey's suggested semantic (i.e.
>>>>> return 0 on not-found, no error message printking).
>>>>
>>>> Please do not do that as anyone trying to forward-port an old driver
>>>> will miss the abi change of functionality and get confused.  Make
>>>> build-breaking changes, if the way a function currently works is
>>>> changed in order to give people a chance.
>>>
>>> Fine for me. I assume this is a Nack for Sergey's patch?
>>
>>    Which patch do you mean? I'm starting to get really muddled... :-(
> 
> I'm talking about "[PATCH 1/2] platform: make
> platform_get_irq_optional() optional"

   I thought GregKH was talking about your renaming patch... :-/

> because "trying to forward-port an
> old driver will miss the abi" applies to it.

   Mhm... why not tell me right from the start? Jr even tell that to Andy
instead of merging his patch, so I wouldn't get sucked into this work? 
I wouldn't bother with v2 and it would have saved a lot of time spent on
email... :-(
   Do we also remember that "the stable API is a nonsense" thing? :-)

> Best regards
> Uwe

MBR, Sergey