[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdY8KqKa3GpfNo5JQAO5+Z3UG0J99VCg_OjsRTa5MJAaYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:06:56 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] input: gpio_keys: Don't report events on gpio failure
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Bjorn Andersson
<bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com> wrote:
> But then the question first goes to Linus & co.
>
> gpio_chip->get() can return a negative value to indicate errors (and did
> so in this case), all parts of the API seems indicates that we can get
> an error (int vs bool).
Ooops.
> Should we change _gpiod_get_raw_value() to propagate this error?
Yes for now. Can you patch it? :)
> Or
> should we just ignore this issue and propagate an error as GPIO high
> reading?
I don't know about the future. In some sense GPIOs are so smallish
resources that errorhandling every call to read/write them seem to
be a royal PITA. That is why I wanted to switch them to bool and get
rid of the problem, but now I also see that maybe that was not such a
smart idea, if errors do occur on the set/get_value path.
Alexandre?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists