[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdY=i9BVYEpu0svmKOQJURH2nQ5iwCM0895fODmkVuPBew@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2016 09:40:05 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Jiang Qiu <qiujiang@...wei.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Alan Tull <delicious.quinoa@...il.com>,
Jamie Iles <jamie@...ieiles.com>, charles.chenxin@...wei.com,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 3/3] gpio: dwapb: add gpio-signaled acpi event support
On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 08:43:22PM +0800, Jiang Qiu wrote:
>> > Currently it just complains if something goes wrong. The GPIO driver
>> > itself can still work just fine (including interrupts).
>> >
>> > I'm fine to change it to return an error code.
>> Agree, if add a error code for acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts(), it looks more pretty.
>>
>> However, this function is common for other part, maybe cause any other effects if I
>> do this change, did you think so?
>
> I'm thinking what the callers are going to do with the error code.
> Basically it means that we were not able to attach and configure ACPI
> event GPIOs. It does not prevent GPIO drivers from functioning so they
> probably just print out some warning message and continue probing, and
> we already warn in acpi_gpiochip_request_interrupts() if something fails.
>
> Unless Linus W insists, let's just keep it as is for now :)
I'm fine with it, don' worry.
I'm just waiting for this patch set to mature so I can apply
it.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists