[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACRpkdaiZgK1EoaUxDtbm_GJHVjZU56e_qBQ-OF0mmwb5W8+tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2019 23:46:22 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
Cc: "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
"Claus H . Stovgaard" <cst@...seone.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: don't WARN() on NULL descs if gpiolib is disabled
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl> wrote:
> wt., 9 lip 2019 o 15:30 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> napisaĆ(a):
> > I was thinking something like this in the stubs:
> >
> > gpiod_get[_index]() {
> > return POISON;
> > }
> >
> > gpiod_get[_index]_optional() {
> > return NULL;
> > }
>
> This is already being done.
Ah it is.
> > This way all gpiod_get() and optional calls are properly
> > handled and the semantic that only _optional calls
> > can return NULL is preserved. (Your patch would
> > violate this.)
> >
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't quite see how my patch
> violates this behavior. :(
I missed that we actually do pass a poison from the strict
*get functions, mea culpa.
Let's apply this, will you send me a pull request or shall I
just try to apply it?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
Powered by blists - more mailing lists