Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 Feb 2017 09:20:01 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: return NULL from gpiod_get_optional when GPIOLIB is disabled |
| |
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 08:45:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > 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@pengutronix.de> > > 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@pengutronix.de> > > 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:
def gpio_get_optional(...): if a gpio is specified: return -ENOSYS else: return NULL
if you really want save some bytes and disable the full-fledged GPIOLIB.
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
| |