Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: return NULL from gpiod_get_optional when GPIOLIB is disabled
From: Uwe Kleine-König
Date: Mon Feb 13 2017 - 03:20:08 EST
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 08:45:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 05:15:01PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 05:13:55PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Given the intent behind gpiod_get_optional() and friends it does not make
> > > sense to return -ENOSYS when GPIOLIB is disabled: the driver is expected to
> > > work just fine without gpio so let's behave as if gpio was not found.
> > > Otherwise we have to special-case -ENOSYS in drivers.
> > >
> > > Note that there was objection that someone might forget to enable GPIOLIB
> > > when dealing with a platform that has device that actually specifies
> > > optional gpio and we'll break it. I find this unconvincing as that would
> > > have to be the *only GPIO* in the system, which is extremely unlikely.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I don't like this patch and so I wonder what I wrote that could be
> interpreted as suggesting this patch. For now I'd say only
> Nacked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> is justified.
Oh, it seems I really sent such a RFC patch some time ago. Still I think
it's wrong to do that and that we need something like a
lookup-only-GPIOLIB that implements:
if a gpio is specified:
if you really want save some bytes and disable the full-fledged GPIOLIB.
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |