[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdZRfLh9RXRycW_cAxuTYE6tPd7LR32EkAW8y2fh=AxhXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 14:41:53 +0100
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
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
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de> wrote:
> 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?
I like the looks of this.
Can we revert Dmitry's patch and apply something like this instead?
Dmitry, how do you feel about this?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists