[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <23158179-3667-c4d7-c8ac-b7a011d77749@axentia.se>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 17:08:17 +0200
From: Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Colin Ian King <colin.king@...onical.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
<kernel@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 03/10] mux: minimal mux subsystem and gpio-based mux
controller
On 2017-04-21 16:18, Philipp Zabel wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Thu, 2017-04-13 at 18:43 +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
> [...]
>> +int mux_control_select(struct mux_control *mux, int state)
>
> state could be unsigned int for the consumer facing API.
>
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>
> And mux_control_select should check that (0 <= state < mux->states).
Yes, that makes sense. I worried that we might end up with
signed/unsigned comparisons since the internal state still needs
to be signed, but that didn't happen when I tried...
I'll include this change in v14.
Cheers,
peda
Powered by blists - more mailing lists