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=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=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 589ECC76196 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 18:03:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 360472085A for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 18:03:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=baylibre-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@baylibre-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="VXbYG3+W" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726779AbfGTSD0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:03:26 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-f194.google.com ([209.85.167.194]:46534 "EHLO mail-oi1-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726489AbfGTSDZ (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Jul 2019 14:03:25 -0400 Received: by mail-oi1-f194.google.com with SMTP id 65so26671505oid.13 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 11:03:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=baylibre-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fV6Yxz5phWkhQA6DReninzloQxSLe34uuPheQWujNzU=; b=VXbYG3+WE8sblpJmTKNLu27EzPYP1iHM+AmcY9VHfuzbAgVjQkz9y0QKaeEEfwrAHz rVGvnj49z5kKX5trEK7cFHuxIwjHd2Xf+FBoXjf39hoWGusOH86ZLwQ/G+OBWkAHHxIq 7gX7zpJWMe4dxmb4EuIA/vnipwgiWI7bmoBaPnvp2OjDy+ID06w0UouPwCIPV6qRTZSn u1RUZ4fJzRwfmG+fMyFsNxKodWBMVTDcHHpYmnNdPeGr+KB2Dpskra3FjhMQ44ed8YWK ZM5YZlk6fHu/Ju6bkiJH8X/ojj+BsYCRbIMW2iItZ08jFMsy88worwZIg8QRRE/p/cXe M3ow== 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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fV6Yxz5phWkhQA6DReninzloQxSLe34uuPheQWujNzU=; b=EzQwIEc4pQEOgBmvYyacoUVwsiz79EhaW8ssC/Db2OFzwfFM8HkIAbuNNl2KHqc8UN hTv83rqy+6UGI7+zT0dZqKB26XrQVe4SOxAycZqovf6WpyfEmduNnDHAvJYaz70waz8T Mk6M0vtprut0Th4CB7AygUo0/A2UTJOqtRicEXC8u2TZjvGK41ADy2yzWGfB3Vl8bGvZ SwrYvCFWkGJxBr34ZdVit2YxsaIA+Shl6GHv6kLb51Qif3O4aV18PSi6ob53/qLBnAoy 1tqfFvdiS7wslguTGkJasOt3LPG5e+/gp/8EZh8jcJcg1fFBx/4vYWE634FBTSEeGnrT S3RQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWHDf3RyXPTWXT2+eB67fBWq7wu8D40zAxIHXlFjFNMtgggdjgk cbaqNpy9eDx3uYvfHYveSybVZt/vCFgrIIC8V2/+oA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwHVk7vHOw+xBU078uF3hkUUhazrYDOeBwuccwt3X+aE2K5ej+DaAT8WkGp2/wh8W/LqW7Xq6xnV+k898hUyjo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:d4:: with SMTP id t20mr9504688oic.170.1563645804556; Sat, 20 Jul 2019 11:03:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190708082343.30726-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> In-Reply-To: From: Bartosz Golaszewski Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2019 20:03:13 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: don't WARN() on NULL descs if gpiolib is disabled To: Linus Walleij Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Claus H . Stovgaard" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org wt., 16 lip 2019 o 23:46 Linus Walleij napisa=C5= =82(a): > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > wt., 9 lip 2019 o 15:30 Linus Walleij napisa= =C5=82(a): > > > > I was thinking something like this in the stubs: > > > > > > gpiod_get[_index]() { > > > return POISON; > > > } > > > > > > gpiod_get[_index]_optional() { > > > return NULL; > > > } > > > > This is already being done. > > Ah it is. > > > > This way all gpiod_get() and optional calls are properly > > > handled and the semantic that only _optional calls > > > can return NULL is preserved. (Your patch would > > > violate this.) > > > > > > > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't quite see how my patch > > violates this behavior. :( > > I missed that we actually do pass a poison from the strict > *get functions, mea culpa. > > Let's apply this, will you send me a pull request or shall I > just try to apply it? > > Yours, > Linus Walleij I'll apply it to my local tree and send it for v5.3-rc2. Bart