[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdVcALm_iLiTgs7GL5S77ur+iGVhyD0yB9FxCfKFpw7uug@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 13:44:19 +0100
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Richard Genoud <richard.genoud@...il.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@...der.be>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Janusz Uzycki <j.uzycki@...roma.com.pl>,
"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] tty/serial: sh-sci: remove uneeded IS_ERR_OR_NULL calls
Hi Uwe,
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 01:03:56PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
>> <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
>> >> Make sure to enable all drivers and subsystems you need when building
>> >> your kernel. That's always true. And may indeed be hard to debug (e.g. what
>> >> kernel options do I need to make systemd work?).
>> >
>> > It's worse here. If you forget to enable a driver the device isn't bound
>> > and that's obvious to diagnose. When ignoring an optional GPIO there
>> > might be a device that claims to work but fails to do so. (e.g. you
>> > write to memory, write() returns 0, but the data never landed there.)
>> >
>> >> > write(2) and close(2) succeed most of the time, too. Still it's not a
>> >> > good idea to not check the return value. Or let the kernel return
>> >> > success unconditionally.
>> >>
>> >> Writing all bytes passed in the buffer is "optional" in another sense than
>> >> an "optional" GPIO: you must retry the write, while you can continue if
>> >> an optional GPIO is not present.
>> >
>> > And that is the point. You can continue *iff* the optional GPIO is not
>> > present. The patch in question removes the ability to determine if that
>> > GPIO is present and claims it is not present.
>>
>> If you forget to enable a driver/subsystem, you sometimes cannot determine
>> if the device is present or not neither.
>>
>> Hence it boils down to "knowing" if there is a GPIO or not.
>> So, when can there be a GPIO?
>> 1. The GPIO is described in DT.
>> => Not an issue, as DT GPIO implies GPIOLIB,
>> 2. The GPIO is described in legacy platform data.
>> => The platform code should make sure GPIOLIB is selected when needed.
>>
>> Issue solved?
>
> I like it better to not rely on platform code to do the right thing.
;-)
> Maybe we can make gpiod_get_optional look like this:
>
> if (!dev->of_node && isnt_a_acpi_device(dev) && !IS_ENABLED(GPIOLIB))
> return NULL;
> else
> return -ENOSYS;
>
> I don't know how isnt_a_acpi_device looks like, probably it involves
> CONFIG_ACPI and/or dev->acpi_node.
>
> This should be safe and still comfortable for legacy platforms, isn't it?
Yes, that should do the trick.
No feedback from me about ACPI.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists