[PATCH] gpiolib: don't bother warning when failing to get gpios

[PATCH] gpiolib: don't bother warning when failing to get gpios

[Heikki Krogerus]

It's the drivers responsibility to react on failure to get
the gpio descriptors and not the frameworks. Since there are
some common peripherals that may or may not have certain
pins connected to gpio lines, depending on the platform,
printing the warning there may end up generating useless bug
reports.

Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
---
 drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 +---
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 4e10b10..2f0305e 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -2434,10 +2434,8 @@ struct gpio_desc *__must_check gpiod_get_index(struct device *dev,
 		desc = gpiod_find(dev, con_id, idx, &flags);
 	}
 
-	if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
-		dev_warn(dev, "lookup for GPIO %s failed\n", con_id);
+	if (IS_ERR(desc))
 		return desc;
-	}
 
 	status = gpiod_request(desc, con_id);
 
-- 
1.8.4.4

Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: don't bother warning when failing to get gpios

[Alexandre Courbot]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Heikki Krogerus
<heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> It's the drivers responsibility to react on failure to get
> the gpio descriptors and not the frameworks. Since there are
> some common peripherals that may or may not have certain
> pins connected to gpio lines, depending on the platform,
> printing the warning there may end up generating useless bug
> reports.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 +---
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> index 4e10b10..2f0305e 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -2434,10 +2434,8 @@ struct gpio_desc *__must_check gpiod_get_index(struct device *dev,
>                 desc = gpiod_find(dev, con_id, idx, &flags);
>         }
>
> -       if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
> -               dev_warn(dev, "lookup for GPIO %s failed\n", con_id);
> +       if (IS_ERR(desc))
>                 return desc;
> -       }
>
>         status = gpiod_request(desc, con_id);

I kind of agree with the logic that motivates this patch, but how
about turning this warning into dev_dbg() instead so that people who
wish so can still continue using it?

Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: don't bother warning when failing to get gpios

[Heikki Krogerus]

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 06:37:35PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Heikki Krogerus
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > index 4e10b10..2f0305e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > @@ -2434,10 +2434,8 @@ struct gpio_desc *__must_check gpiod_get_index(struct device *dev,
> >                 desc = gpiod_find(dev, con_id, idx, &flags);
> >         }
> >
> > -       if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
> > -               dev_warn(dev, "lookup for GPIO %s failed\n", con_id);
> > +       if (IS_ERR(desc))
> >                 return desc;
> > -       }
> >
> >         status = gpiod_request(desc, con_id);
> 
> I kind of agree with the logic that motivates this patch, but how
> about turning this warning into dev_dbg() instead so that people who
> wish so can still continue using it?

Sure, I'll send v2 of this and do just that.

Thanks,

-- 
heikki

Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: don't bother warning when failing to get gpios

[Linus Walleij]

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Heikki Krogerus
<heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 06:37:35PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Heikki Krogerus
>> > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> > index 4e10b10..2f0305e 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> > @@ -2434,10 +2434,8 @@ struct gpio_desc *__must_check gpiod_get_index(struct device *dev,
>> >                 desc = gpiod_find(dev, con_id, idx, &flags);
>> >         }
>> >
>> > -       if (IS_ERR(desc)) {
>> > -               dev_warn(dev, "lookup for GPIO %s failed\n", con_id);
>> > +       if (IS_ERR(desc))
>> >                 return desc;
>> > -       }
>> >
>> >         status = gpiod_request(desc, con_id);
>>
>> I kind of agree with the logic that motivates this patch, but how
>> about turning this warning into dev_dbg() instead so that people who
>> wish so can still continue using it?
>
> Sure, I'll send v2 of this and do just that.

Please do, this has been a bit noisy and should probably go in
as a fix.

Yours,
Linus Walleij