From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count() Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2017 13:51:31 +0200 Message-ID: <20170314115131.GO2957@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <20170220161549.39490-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170220161549.39490-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:29201 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750943AbdCNLxr (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:53:47 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Andy Shevchenko , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , Dmitry Torokhov , Linux Input , Darren Hart , platform-driver-x86 , Benjamin Tissoires , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:43:02AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko > 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 > > Mika/Rafael, can you look at this patch? Acked-by: Mika Westerberg