[PATCHv3 net-next] net: modernize IRQ resource acquisition

[Julian Calaby]

Hi Rosen,

On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 8:14 AM Rosen Penev <rosenp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In probe, np == pdev->dev.of_node. It's easier to pass pdev directly.
>
> Replace irq_of_parse_and_map() by platform_get_irq() to do so. Requires
> removing the error message as well as fixing the return type.
>
> Replace of_address_to_resource() with platform_get_resource() for the
> same reason.

Sorry for the drive-by review, but I have to question the utility of
this conversion.

> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/grcan.c b/drivers/net/can/grcan.c
> index cdf0ec9fa7f3..48e93c3445e7 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/can/grcan.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/can/grcan.c
> @@ -1673,9 +1673,8 @@ static int grcan_probe(struct platform_device *ofdev)
>                 goto exit_error;
>         }
>
> -       irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, GRCAN_IRQIX_IRQ);
> -       if (!irq) {
> -               dev_err(&ofdev->dev, "no irq found\n");
> +       irq = platform_get_irq(ofdev, GRCAN_IRQIX_IRQ);
> +       if (irq < 0) {

In this change and a lot of the others, you're not removing the "np"
variable, so you're basically replacing one wrapper with another.

>                 err = -ENODEV;
>                 goto exit_error;
>         }
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fs_enet/mac-fcc.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fs_enet/mac-fcc.c
> index be63293511d9..9006137e3a55 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fs_enet/mac-fcc.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/freescale/fs_enet/mac-fcc.c
> @@ -83,8 +83,8 @@ static int do_pd_setup(struct fs_enet_private *fep)
>         struct fs_platform_info *fpi = fep->fpi;
>         int ret = -EINVAL;
>
> -       fep->interrupt = irq_of_parse_and_map(ofdev->dev.of_node, 0);
> -       if (!fep->interrupt)
> +       fep->interrupt = platform_get_irq(ofdev, 0);
> +       if (fep->interrupt < 0)

This one and others like it are fine: it's much cleaner to use the
"platform_irq()" function instead of reaching deep into the structure
to grab the "of_node" property.

That said, in this case and probably a few others this is a driver for
an OF device so I'm still not sure this actually makes sense.

Thanks,

-- 
Julian Calaby

Email: julian.calaby at gmail.com
Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/