* [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-02-20 16:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-14 9:43 ` Linus Walleij
2017-03-16 14:42 ` Linus Walleij
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 2/4] gpio: of: Don't return 0 on dt_gpio_count() Andy Shevchenko
` (3 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-02-20 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij, linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input,
Darren Hart, platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires,
linux-kernel
Cc: Andy Shevchenko
It's unusual to have error checking like (ret <= 0) in cases when
counting GPIO resources. In case when it's mandatory we propagate the
error (-ENOENT), otherwise we don't use the result.
This makes consistent behaviour across all possible variants called in
gpiod_count().
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
index 9b37a3692b3f..d7a22c470312 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
@@ -1067,7 +1067,7 @@ int acpi_gpio_count(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
break;
}
}
- if (count >= 0)
+ if (count > 0)
break;
}
@@ -1083,7 +1083,7 @@ int acpi_gpio_count(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
if (crs_count > 0)
count = crs_count;
}
- return count;
+ return count ? count : -ENOENT;
}
struct acpi_crs_lookup {
--
2.11.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count() Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-03-14 9:43 ` Linus Walleij
2017-03-14 11:51 ` Mika Westerberg
2017-03-16 14:42 ` Linus Walleij
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-03-14 9:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg, Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, Linux Input, Darren Hart,
platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> It's unusual to have error checking like (ret <= 0) in cases when
> counting GPIO resources. In case when it's mandatory we propagate the
> error (-ENOENT), otherwise we don't use the result.
>
> This makes consistent behaviour across all possible variants called in
> gpiod_count().
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Mika/Rafael, can you look at this patch?
(Andy: sorry for late reply, busy merge window...)
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count()
2017-03-14 9:43 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2017-03-14 11:51 ` Mika Westerberg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Mika Westerberg @ 2017-03-14 11:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij
Cc: Andy Shevchenko, Rafael J. Wysocki, linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov,
Linux Input, Darren Hart, platform-driver-x86,
Benjamin Tissoires, linux-kernel
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:43:02AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > It's unusual to have error checking like (ret <= 0) in cases when
> > counting GPIO resources. In case when it's mandatory we propagate the
> > error (-ENOENT), otherwise we don't use the result.
> >
> > This makes consistent behaviour across all possible variants called in
> > gpiod_count().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
>
> Mika/Rafael, can you look at this patch?
Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count() Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-14 9:43 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2017-03-16 14:42 ` Linus Walleij
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-03-16 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, Linux Input, Darren Hart,
platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> It's unusual to have error checking like (ret <= 0) in cases when
> counting GPIO resources. In case when it's mandatory we propagate the
> error (-ENOENT), otherwise we don't use the result.
>
> This makes consistent behaviour across all possible variants called in
> gpiod_count().
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Patch applied with Mika's ACK.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v1 2/4] gpio: of: Don't return 0 on dt_gpio_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent Andy Shevchenko
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count() Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-02-20 16:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-16 14:43 ` Linus Walleij
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count() Andy Shevchenko
` (2 subsequent siblings)
4 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-02-20 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij, linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input,
Darren Hart, platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires,
linux-kernel
Cc: Andy Shevchenko
It's unusual to have error checking like (ret <= 0) in cases when
counting GPIO resources. In case when it's mandatory we propagate the
error (-ENOENT), otherwise we don't use the result.
This makes consistent behaviour across all possible variants called in
gpiod_count().
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 8b4d721d6d63..f8ee417de0b7 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -3122,10 +3122,10 @@ static int dt_gpio_count(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
gpio_suffixes[i]);
ret = of_gpio_named_count(dev->of_node, propname);
- if (ret >= 0)
+ if (ret > 0)
break;
}
- return ret;
+ return ret ? ret : -ENOENT;
}
static int platform_gpio_count(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
--
2.11.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 2/4] gpio: of: Don't return 0 on dt_gpio_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 2/4] gpio: of: Don't return 0 on dt_gpio_count() Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-03-16 14:43 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-03-16 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, Linux Input, Darren Hart,
platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> It's unusual to have error checking like (ret <= 0) in cases when
> counting GPIO resources. In case when it's mandatory we propagate the
> error (-ENOENT), otherwise we don't use the result.
>
> This makes consistent behaviour across all possible variants called in
> gpiod_count().
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Patch applied.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v1 3/4] platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent Andy Shevchenko
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count() Andy Shevchenko
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 2/4] gpio: of: Don't return 0 on dt_gpio_count() Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-02-20 16:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-14 9:46 ` Linus Walleij
2017-03-16 14:45 ` Linus Walleij
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] Input: soc_button_array - " Andy Shevchenko
2017-02-27 8:27 ` [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent Benjamin Tissoires
4 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-02-20 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij, linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input,
Darren Hart, platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires,
linux-kernel
Cc: Andy Shevchenko
Since gpiod_count() does not return 0 anymore, we don't need to shadow
its error code and would safely propagate to the user.
While here, replace second parameter by NULL in order to prevent side
effects on _DSD enabled firmware.
Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/platform/x86/surface3_button.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/surface3_button.c b/drivers/platform/x86/surface3_button.c
index 8bfd7f613d36..57f51476bb65 100644
--- a/drivers/platform/x86/surface3_button.c
+++ b/drivers/platform/x86/surface3_button.c
@@ -196,9 +196,10 @@ static int surface3_button_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
strlen(SURFACE_BUTTON_OBJ_NAME)))
return -ENODEV;
- if (gpiod_count(dev, KBUILD_MODNAME) <= 0) {
+ error = gpiod_count(dev, NULL);
+ if (error < 0) {
dev_dbg(dev, "no GPIO attached, ignoring...\n");
- return -ENODEV;
+ return error;
}
priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
--
2.11.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count() Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-03-14 9:46 ` Linus Walleij
2017-03-14 12:28 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-16 14:45 ` Linus Walleij
1 sibling, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-03-14 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, Linux Input, Darren Hart,
platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Since gpiod_count() does not return 0 anymore, we don't need to shadow
> its error code and would safely propagate to the user.
>
> While here, replace second parameter by NULL in order to prevent side
> effects on _DSD enabled firmware.
>
> Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
As I understand it Andy, you're more or less default-maintainer for
drivers/platform/x86 so I can just merge this patch into the
GPIO tree with the rest?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count()
2017-03-14 9:46 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2017-03-14 12:28 ` Andy Shevchenko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-03-14 12:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij
Cc: linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, Linux Input, Darren Hart,
platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires, linux-kernel
On Tue, 2017-03-14 at 10:46 +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Since gpiod_count() does not return 0 anymore, we don't need to
> > shadow
> > its error code and would safely propagate to the user.
> >
> > While here, replace second parameter by NULL in order to prevent
> > side
> > effects on _DSD enabled firmware.
> >
> > Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
>
> As I understand it Andy, you're more or less default-maintainer for
> drivers/platform/x86 so I can just merge this patch into the
> GPIO tree with the rest?
Correct!
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count() Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-14 9:46 ` Linus Walleij
@ 2017-03-16 14:45 ` Linus Walleij
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-03-16 14:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, Linux Input, Darren Hart,
platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Since gpiod_count() does not return 0 anymore, we don't need to shadow
> its error code and would safely propagate to the user.
>
> While here, replace second parameter by NULL in order to prevent side
> effects on _DSD enabled firmware.
>
> Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Patch applied to the GPIO tree.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v1 4/4] Input: soc_button_array - Propagate error from gpiod_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent Andy Shevchenko
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 3/4] platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count() Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-02-20 16:15 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-02-23 8:40 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2017-03-16 14:46 ` Linus Walleij
2017-02-27 8:27 ` [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent Benjamin Tissoires
4 siblings, 2 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-02-20 16:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linus Walleij, linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input,
Darren Hart, platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires,
linux-kernel
Cc: Andy Shevchenko
Since gpiod_count() does not return 0 anymore, we don't need to shadow
its error code and would safely propagate to the user.
While here, replace second parameter by NULL in order to prevent side
effects on _DSD enabled firmware.
Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
---
drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c b/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c
index ddb2f22fca7a..c3b8e1fb4699 100644
--- a/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c
+++ b/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c
@@ -169,9 +169,10 @@ static int soc_button_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
button_info = (struct soc_button_info *)id->driver_data;
- if (gpiod_count(dev, KBUILD_MODNAME) <= 0) {
+ error = gpiod_count(dev, NULL);
+ if (error < 0) {
dev_dbg(dev, "no GPIO attached, ignoring...\n");
- return -ENODEV;
+ return error;
}
priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
--
2.11.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] Input: soc_button_array - Propagate error from gpiod_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] Input: soc_button_array - " Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-02-23 8:40 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2017-03-16 14:46 ` Linus Walleij
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Dmitry Torokhov @ 2017-02-23 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: Linus Walleij, linux-gpio, linux-input, Darren Hart,
platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 06:15:49PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> Since gpiod_count() does not return 0 anymore, we don't need to shadow
> its error code and would safely propagate to the user.
>
> While here, replace second parameter by NULL in order to prevent side
> effects on _DSD enabled firmware.
>
> Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Acked-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c b/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c
> index ddb2f22fca7a..c3b8e1fb4699 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c
> @@ -169,9 +169,10 @@ static int soc_button_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> button_info = (struct soc_button_info *)id->driver_data;
>
> - if (gpiod_count(dev, KBUILD_MODNAME) <= 0) {
> + error = gpiod_count(dev, NULL);
> + if (error < 0) {
> dev_dbg(dev, "no GPIO attached, ignoring...\n");
> - return -ENODEV;
> + return error;
> }
>
> priv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> --
> 2.11.0
>
--
Dmitry
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] Input: soc_button_array - Propagate error from gpiod_count()
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] Input: soc_button_array - " Andy Shevchenko
2017-02-23 8:40 ` Dmitry Torokhov
@ 2017-03-16 14:46 ` Linus Walleij
1 sibling, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-03-16 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, Linux Input, Darren Hart,
platform-driver-x86, Benjamin Tissoires, linux-kernel
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Since gpiod_count() does not return 0 anymore, we don't need to shadow
> its error code and would safely propagate to the user.
>
> While here, replace second parameter by NULL in order to prevent side
> effects on _DSD enabled firmware.
>
> Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Patch applied with Dmitry's ACK.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent
2017-02-20 16:15 [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent Andy Shevchenko
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2017-02-20 16:15 ` [PATCH v1 4/4] Input: soc_button_array - " Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-02-27 8:27 ` Benjamin Tissoires
2017-02-28 9:48 ` Andy Shevchenko
4 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Benjamin Tissoires @ 2017-02-27 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko
Cc: Linus Walleij, linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input,
Darren Hart, platform-driver-x86, linux-kernel
On Feb 20 2017 or thereabouts, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> There are three possibilities in gpiod_count(): ACPI, OF, and
> platform data.
>
> Some of them return 0, which requires to be handled separately, though
> developers rather lazy and just shadow an actual error code.
>
> Let's make this API consistent by not allowing 0 in returned value.
>
> There are luckily only 3 users right now, one of them handles this
> properly, the rest is converted in this series.
>
> Series is supposed to go through GPIO tree.
>
> Andy Shevchenko (4):
> gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count()
> gpio: of: Don't return 0 on dt_gpio_count()
> platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count()
> Input: soc_button_array - Propagate error from gpiod_count()
Not sure if this still matters, but still:
Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
Cheers,
Benjamin
>
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 4 ++--
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 ++--
> drivers/input/misc/soc_button_array.c | 5 +++--
> drivers/platform/x86/surface3_button.c | 5 +++--
> 4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.11.0
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent
2017-02-27 8:27 ` [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent Benjamin Tissoires
@ 2017-02-28 9:48 ` Andy Shevchenko
2017-03-14 9:49 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 1 reply; 17+ messages in thread
From: Andy Shevchenko @ 2017-02-28 9:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Benjamin Tissoires
Cc: Linus Walleij, linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, linux-input,
Darren Hart, platform-driver-x86, linux-kernel
On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 09:27 +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
> On Feb 20 2017 or thereabouts, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > There are three possibilities in gpiod_count(): ACPI, OF, and
> > platform data.
> >
> > Some of them return 0, which requires to be handled separately,
> > though
> > developers rather lazy and just shadow an actual error code.
> >
> > Let's make this API consistent by not allowing 0 in returned value.
> >
> > There are luckily only 3 users right now, one of them handles this
> > properly, the rest is converted in this series.
> >
> > Series is supposed to go through GPIO tree.
> >
> > Andy Shevchenko (4):
> > gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count()
> > gpio: of: Don't return 0 on dt_gpio_count()
> > platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count()
> > Input: soc_button_array - Propagate error from gpiod_count()
>
> Not sure if this still matters, but still:
> Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
I'm sure it is.
Linus, is your plan to go through queue after merge window is closed?
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent
2017-02-28 9:48 ` Andy Shevchenko
@ 2017-03-14 9:49 ` Linus Walleij
0 siblings, 0 replies; 17+ messages in thread
From: Linus Walleij @ 2017-03-14 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andy Shevchenko, Mika Westerberg, Rafael J. Wysocki
Cc: Benjamin Tissoires, linux-gpio, Dmitry Torokhov, Linux Input,
Darren Hart, platform-driver-x86, linux-kernel
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 10:48 AM, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 09:27 +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote:
>> On Feb 20 2017 or thereabouts, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> > There are three possibilities in gpiod_count(): ACPI, OF, and
>> > platform data.
>> >
>> > Some of them return 0, which requires to be handled separately,
>> > though
>> > developers rather lazy and just shadow an actual error code.
>> >
>> > Let's make this API consistent by not allowing 0 in returned value.
>> >
>> > There are luckily only 3 users right now, one of them handles this
>> > properly, the rest is converted in this series.
>> >
>> > Series is supposed to go through GPIO tree.
>> >
>> > Andy Shevchenko (4):
>> > gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count()
>> > gpio: of: Don't return 0 on dt_gpio_count()
>> > platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count()
>> > Input: soc_button_array - Propagate error from gpiod_count()
>>
>> Not sure if this still matters, but still:
>> Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com>
>
> I'm sure it is.
>
> Linus, is your plan to go through queue after merge window is closed?
Yes sorry for the delay, it was a busy merge window etc.
I'd like to have some nod from Mika/Rafael that this is what
we want to do. If I don't hear anything I guess I will just
merge them, it looks right to me.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 17+ messages in thread