Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: return -ENOENT when no GPIO mapping exists

[Alex Courbot]

On 12/09/2013 07:28 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-06 at 11:06 +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> > Some devices drivers make use of optional GPIO parameters. For such
> > drivers, it is important to discriminate between the case where no
> > GPIO mapping has been defined for the function they are requesting, and
> > the case where a mapping exists but an error occured while resolving it
> > or when acquiring the GPIO.
> >
> > This patch changes the family of gpiod_get() functions such that they
> > will return -ENOENT if and only if no GPIO mapping is defined for the
> > requested function. Other error codes are used when an actual error
> > occured during the GPIO resolution.
>
> I like the idea.
> One minor comment below (in code).
>
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > I think this change should be merged early as not having it may prevent
> > some users to switch to gpiod. I stumbled upon this issue while
> > considering porting a simple driver (pwm_bl) that has an optional GPIO
> > parameter.
> >
> > Mika, Andy: if Linus agrees with this change, could you take care of
> > having -ENOENT returned as well for the ACPI and SFI GPIOs lookup?
>
> I have already switched to -ENOENT, so, consider done.

Great, thanks!

> > My understanding of ACPI was not sufficient to allow me to do it myself.
> > SFI OTOH should be trivial as it is a simple table.
> >
> >   Documentation/gpio/consumer.txt |  6 +++++-
> >   drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c          | 31 ++++++++++++++++---------------
> >   2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/gpio/consumer.txt b/Documentation/gpio/consumer.txt
> > index 07c74a3765a0..e42f77d8d4ca 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/gpio/consumer.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/gpio/consumer.txt
> > @@ -38,7 +38,11 @@ device that displays digits), an additional index argument can be specified:
> >   					  const char *con_id, unsigned int idx)
> >
> >   Both functions return either a valid GPIO descriptor, or an error code checkable
> > -with IS_ERR(). They will never return a NULL pointer.
> > +with IS_ERR() (they will never return a NULL pointer). -ENOENT will be returned
> > +if and only if no GPIO has been assigned to the device/function/index triplet,
> > +other error codes are used for cases where a GPIO has been assigned but an error
> > +occured while trying to acquire it. This is useful to discriminate between mere
> > +errors and an absence of GPIO for optional GPIO parameters.
> >
> >   Device-managed variants of these functions are also defined:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > index 5fad38fcd701..e96d4a90c0c3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > @@ -2358,7 +2358,7 @@ static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
> >   				    unsigned int idx,
> >   				    enum gpio_lookup_flags *flags)
> >   {
> > -	struct gpio_desc *desc = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > +	struct gpio_desc *desc = ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> >   	struct gpiod_lookup_table *table;
> >   	struct gpiod_lookup *p;
> >
> > @@ -2380,19 +2380,21 @@ static struct gpio_desc *gpiod_find(struct device *dev, const char *con_id,
> >   		chip = find_chip_by_name(p->chip_label);
> >
> >   		if (!chip) {
> > -			dev_warn(dev, "cannot find GPIO chip %s\n",
> > -				 p->chip_label);
> > -			continue;
> > +			dev_err(dev, "cannot find GPIO chip %s\n",
> > +				p->chip_label);
> > +			return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> >   		}
> >
> >   		if (chip->ngpio <= p->chip_hwnum) {
> > -			dev_warn(dev, "GPIO chip %s has %d GPIOs\n",
> > -				 chip->label, chip->ngpio);
> > -			continue;
> > +			dev_err(dev, "requested GPIO %d but chip %s has %d\n",
>
> The proposed message may confuse user. This lead to question in my head:
> "what gpio chip has that referred by %d at the end of line".
>
> Maybe something like "requested GPIO %d is out of range [0..%d] for chip
> %s\n" ?

I agree it would be better. My concern here is to have the line fit 
within 80 characters. :P

But you're right, I will improve this in v2.

Thanks,
Alex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/