Re: [PATCH 13/54] gpio: pcf857x: Be sure to clamp return value

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Linus,

Thank you for the patch.

On Tuesday 22 December 2015 15:20:09 Linus Walleij wrote:
> As we want gpio_chip .get() calls to be able to return negative
> error codes and propagate to drivers, we need to go over all
> drivers and make sure their return values are clamped to [0,1].
> We do this by using the ret = !!(val) design pattern.

The patch itself looks good to me, but wouldn't it be easier to patch the 
caller to clamp positive values to [0,1] and propagate negative values 
untouched ?

> Also start returning the error code if something fails, as the
> end of the series augment the core to support this.
> 
> Cc: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
> Cc: George Cherian <george.cherian@ti.com>
> Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.c
> index bf511c0efa48..f64380a7d004 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pcf857x.c
> @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ static int pcf857x_get(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned
> offset) int		value;
> 
>  	value = gpio->read(gpio->client);
> -	return (value < 0) ? 0 : (value & (1 << offset));
> +	return (value < 0) ? value : !!(value & (1 << offset));
>  }
> 
>  static int pcf857x_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int
> value)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart