[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaA2_kHRDdNtUKHg9yqq1akD+yYhgmzFzB5Hkq0=vA-Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 09:34:49 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
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 Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com> wrote:
> So I'd say it makes sense to propagate errors returned by the driver's
> get() hook. This might contradict some of our earlier statements about
> simplifying the GPIO API, but is preferrable to having to make a
> decision as to which valid value to return if the driver fails...
>
> It should then be made very clear in the documentation that the only
> positive values ever returned by the GPIO API will be 0 and 1 (we
> already have a clamping mechanism for that IIRC), and that negative
> values are propagated as-is.
>
> Linus, does that seem reasonable to you? Does anyone has the intention
> to address that one or should I add it to my short-term TODO list?
I'm aligned with this. Go ahead on this path.
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