[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20240513100200.218261-1-laura.nao@collabora.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 12:02:00 +0200
From: Laura Nao <laura.nao@...labora.com>
To: andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com
Cc: bot@...nelci.org,
brgl@...ev.pl,
kernel@...labora.com,
laura.nao@...labora.com,
linus.walleij@...aro.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: acpi: Add ACPI device NULL check to
Hi Andy,
On 5/10/24 16:46, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
> Now we may remove that check from __acpi_find_gpio():
>
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
> @@ -988,10 +988,10 @@ __acpi_find_gpio(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
> const char *con_id, unsigned int
> }
>
> /* Then from plain _CRS GPIOs */
> - if (!adev || !can_fallback)
> - return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> + if (can_fallback)
> + return acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, NULL, idx, info);
>
> - return acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, NULL, idx, info);
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> }
>
> struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
>
>
> As a side effect it will make the comment better to understand.
>
> With above suggestion applied, feel free to add mine
> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
>
> You might need to rephrase the commit message to say that
>
> "We also move the check in additional to the moving the function
> call
> outside of __acpi_find_gpio()."
>
> or something similar, up to you.
>
Thanks for the feedback, I sent another patch with the suggestions above
applied:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240513095610.216668-1-laura.nao@collabora.com/T/#u
Best regards,
Laura Nao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists