| Message ID | 1455876273-5913-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:04:33AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > At this point in gpio_keys_polled_probe(), button->gpiod contains either > a pointer to a GPIO descriptor or NULL, because: > - gpio_keys_polled_get_devtree_pdata() fills in button->gpiod only if > devm_get_gpiod_from_child() succeeded, > - gpio_to_desc() returns NULL on failure, not an ERR_PTR(), > - button->gpiod is untouched if it was NULL, and button->gpio is not > valid. > > Hence check for NULL only, and return -EINVAL on failure. > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:04:33AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > At this point in gpio_keys_polled_probe(), button->gpiod contains either > a pointer to a GPIO descriptor or NULL, because: > - gpio_keys_polled_get_devtree_pdata() fills in button->gpiod only if > devm_get_gpiod_from_child() succeeded, > - gpio_to_desc() returns NULL on failure, not an ERR_PTR(), > - button->gpiod is untouched if it was NULL, and button->gpio is not > valid. > > Hence check for NULL only, and return -EINVAL on failure. > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > --- > Question: Should it return -ENOENT instead? > > next-20160219:drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c uses -EINVAL, too. > --- > drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c > index 62bdb1d48c49dbd9..1ef3c66099a50d72 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c > +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c > @@ -330,8 +330,8 @@ static int gpio_keys_polled_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > button->gpiod = gpio_to_desc(button->gpio); > } > > - if (IS_ERR(button->gpiod)) > - return PTR_ERR(button->gpiod); > + if (!button->gpiod) > + return -EINVAL; I wonder if we should move this check into body of if (!button->gpiod && gpio_is_valid(button->gpio)) { ... } Thanks.
diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c index 62bdb1d48c49dbd9..1ef3c66099a50d72 100644 --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c @@ -330,8 +330,8 @@ static int gpio_keys_polled_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) button->gpiod = gpio_to_desc(button->gpio); } - if (IS_ERR(button->gpiod)) - return PTR_ERR(button->gpiod); + if (!button->gpiod) + return -EINVAL; bdata->can_sleep = gpiod_cansleep(button->gpiod); bdata->last_state = -1;
At this point in gpio_keys_polled_probe(), button->gpiod contains either a pointer to a GPIO descriptor or NULL, because: - gpio_keys_polled_get_devtree_pdata() fills in button->gpiod only if devm_get_gpiod_from_child() succeeded, - gpio_to_desc() returns NULL on failure, not an ERR_PTR(), - button->gpiod is untouched if it was NULL, and button->gpio is not valid. Hence check for NULL only, and return -EINVAL on failure. Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> --- Question: Should it return -ENOENT instead? next-20160219:drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c uses -EINVAL, too. --- drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)