Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1600169 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count()

Started byLinus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
First post2017-03-14 10:50 +0100
Last post2017-03-14 13:00 +0100
Articles 2 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count() Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2017-03-14 10:50 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count() Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> - 2017-03-14 13:00 +0100

#1600169 — Re: [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count()

FromLinus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date2017-03-14 10:50 +0100
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/4] gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count()
Message-ID<tkRfA-6BP-23@gated-at.bofh.it>
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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1600268

FromMika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>
Date2017-03-14 13:00 +0100
Message-ID<tkTho-84x-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1600169
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>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web