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=-3.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,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 1FFADC433E2 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 18:58:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B425F206B2 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 18:58:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=bgdev-pl.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bgdev-pl.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="SFRo8QQj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727622AbgIPS6F (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 14:58:05 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36460 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727629AbgIPRxA (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 Sep 2020 13:53:00 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-xd41.google.com (mail-io1-xd41.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99157C0005BE for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd41.google.com with SMTP id r25so8605649ioj.0 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bgdev-pl.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=E5pF9lMmeVoSBJb8mSB6mFtIhSuvd8nIA3BqMoC/eWU=; b=SFRo8QQjxsU7yKkA+RZc0YVot3GIsc/FRsrK3XDE3VFi72Otyyfa37isT95eY/1wtq MFTg0QpHqZRFvTRFDlrFiSP3PwPeoA+vQWykjFHhcOa6Pt45+MOdLiZIGiWfr/0bBR55 x6zoBu/4a/uCc2h1Qtdet7tGyDJj6X4suctDKC1q2H1gyhukKXJsDMdlzeuOkJTB1cz5 NgQ9SfBmbOhIO95vCjqaG5gyoMA2Y5IDj/Ozp7HLnsrr9GeFkW84RSVFeycVMOw3jqL1 QzlgXVHjwg6JEJ3b7wBa/bDvc3fOnW4NMEdYxIAk4e9E5IXvJM2BaUO/KoEw/9ZXqGVM dxvA== 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=E5pF9lMmeVoSBJb8mSB6mFtIhSuvd8nIA3BqMoC/eWU=; b=qTl4vwr1sR1XnvlzBYVQ/wySidsKOmCvRV7ttfcEjwP853AMjz5RQIktMYToosDddX A2Ak+rnoqQJpP8FfV8nzTmbH82uw0YZPnynToWNI7HZM8MABs09961XZxC/2vRalMBDo soMy8jEv11dO0gtj5kfPnZmYIvJoWFVVJmHg+RYKrJUnyMffqpWb6aPGacz8i/2TaDm9 htUP0qt/H+5TSVv51gzJ3sh5ZvG+Guv8Hs6QFWvvP7bvlt85Z5VCahO1MHnUqPX8JPjf 53KPppNMP6HifUiFWdMaufEhCrFybkJV5uafJNzdl7MGre1tBq/2E5YVyoa7gnpvT2+E cBtw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532Iy29174anEVbv3YKkOOc09MKDntDcVoRLTLdG0UnNAro3x8xM sTj+rNbhm80tHms39wsnbqeopkIWjy2aY79Tz398Xw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwCfgvVwRMe8qj05bW8NCAyHSJaBHEQTb4Zp/DlvR6q1kq3Dtj8xtOG1GNzb97HgQ8aIB/XjoMexxrp3seDKmM= X-Received: by 2002:a5e:dc08:: with SMTP id b8mr19358681iok.13.1600267655428; Wed, 16 Sep 2020 07:47:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200916134327.3435-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <20200916142930.GK3956970@smile.fi.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20200916142930.GK3956970@smile.fi.intel.com> From: Bartosz Golaszewski Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2020 16:47:24 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH next] gpiolib: check for parent device in devprop_gpiochip_set_names() To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Linus Walleij , Mika Westerberg , Kent Gibson , Anders Roxell , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Bartosz Golaszewski Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org 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 Sure, I'll make a v2 then. Bart