| Message ID | 20170220161549.39490-3-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Awaiting Upstream, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > It's unusual to have error checking like (ret <= 0) in cases when > counting GPIO resources. In case when it's mandatory we propagate the > error (-ENOENT), otherwise we don't use the result. > > This makes consistent behaviour across all possible variants called in > gpiod_count(). > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Patch applied. Yours, Linus Walleij
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c index 8b4d721d6d63..f8ee417de0b7 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c @@ -3122,10 +3122,10 @@ static int dt_gpio_count(struct device *dev, const char *con_id) gpio_suffixes[i]); ret = of_gpio_named_count(dev->of_node, propname); - if (ret >= 0) + if (ret > 0) break; } - return ret; + return ret ? ret : -ENOENT; } static int platform_gpio_count(struct device *dev, const char *con_id)
It's unusual to have error checking like (ret <= 0) in cases when counting GPIO resources. In case when it's mandatory we propagate the error (-ENOENT), otherwise we don't use the result. This makes consistent behaviour across all possible variants called in gpiod_count(). Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> --- drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)