[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1490713442.708.33.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 18:04:02 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / gpio: do not fall back to parsing _CRS when we
get a deferral
On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 13:21 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should
> immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to
> parsing
> unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block.
+Cc: Hans.
Hans, do have any objections on this? Would you ideally give your
Tested-by?
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> index a3faefa44f68..d3f9f028a37b 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> @@ -572,8 +572,10 @@ struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct device
> *dev,
> }
>
> desc = acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, propname, idx,
> &info);
> - if (!IS_ERR(desc) || (PTR_ERR(desc) ==
> -EPROBE_DEFER))
> + if (!IS_ERR(desc))
> break;
> + if (PTR_ERR(desc) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> + return ERR_CAST(desc);
> }
>
> /* Then from plain _CRS GPIOs */
> --
> 2.12.1.500.gab5fba24ee-goog
>
>
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
Powered by blists - more mailing lists