From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5517FC43461 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 22:43:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10F5A2078D for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 22:43:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linaro.org header.i=@linaro.org header.b="NoKXXjta" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726642AbgIPWm6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 18:42:58 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53524 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726455AbgIPWm5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 18:42:57 -0400 Received: from mail-lf1-x142.google.com (mail-lf1-x142.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::142]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 577FEC06121E for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lf1-x142.google.com with SMTP id z19so8542100lfr.4 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:25:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7GiT9eDSqdWyYzWccMuLBu4d8BPz/ksICennMbNChNM=; b=NoKXXjtajoWY4tEFRPv2OskWdH4HGzBP1P/qSWuc9FaxXQ+8jqAufht1vLsf99B80m riS1+DGjBqL6gylbik034bUF17j9V99bs70Y39lHhiPe/wMIYMIz2lBihGBf7VXA18TC x/1r0GtDrUau+gBq35J351RVX/wmtLLAbQfhrLLHoTXxuAlZPWZmJF9CfnGH2lPNg7ky G+Wvyg19qnDvcL5dQN6srKoGXQIWyBR2ty79taasZeDEJ9vriuypOmN/LvMPVhL8WhZx vvqQpJILvKOL/cwoOgWCByZr7zkqmbwEeYvHTObSbVXIPOLwa6PKMEkITFWYytcqnf8b fSGQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7GiT9eDSqdWyYzWccMuLBu4d8BPz/ksICennMbNChNM=; b=gjc+kXtjCTXd6ijIyrNHP7Z3r+06+QJ3KhYLNUVoxJRqFuQc5auwpG8wzXLIDj0iW8 uKLQjnIxnpS7JHNNMAEg/k0E+dAdKUhKuQA7djLf53Crh6TsuBgw3YkupTsqD5NeyuwB 0qJW9mRQFA+iiYDBA7UXoMJfwECc/rDi8FELxXKWUrBuP7H6aQxskVzfwNmE6sNMS+Aw 8DcaaO//d3z2zUHZeB9aJvoxqhqXFOlorAPptFJR7SB4H/wUGmlMLLK8A8uISHhc1CjM dVGgRdsGbsnLUx3ygbXW4I5VgQYHb3d3EaO983+Ccn1PLq8V79D4qc8Jc18w6DmLmEeH eokA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530mk/WUsMf6Bi4MT44QZ+AT6HmoPeHC1Dx+bRs2BVVVw9oVktuS JGbtiHvff3ki5OcEPho4mYYNyJmhhDxTORrDdvVwZA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzs5b4eYGb5oM4j7BucCL1k9GFEUi9CJ1alb6woPq/13hXbCACv89mQmtJYmPgH7ogIwt1+WAgGpNdk80Nlso4= X-Received: by 2002:ac2:51a8:: with SMTP id f8mr9031976lfk.472.1600291526503; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:25:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200916134327.3435-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20200916142930.GK3956970@smile.fi.intel.com> In-Reply-To: From: Anders Roxell Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 23:25:15 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH next] gpiolib: check for parent device in devprop_gpiochip_set_names() To: Bartosz Golaszewski Cc: Andy Shevchenko , Linus Walleij , Mika Westerberg , Kent Gibson , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Bartosz Golaszewski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 16 Sep 2020 at 16:47, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 4:29 PM Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 03:43:27PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski > > > > > > It's possible for a GPIO chip to not have a parent device (whose > > > properties we inspect for 'gpio-line-names'). In this case we should > > > simply return from devprop_gpiochip_set_names(). Add an appropriate > > > check for this use-case. > > > > Ah, nice! > > Can we also add a small comment in the code, b/c w/o it I would stumble over > > and eager to remove looks-as-unneeded check? > > Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko Tested-by: Anders Roxell