From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] gpio: make gpiod_count() API consistent Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 11:48:06 +0200 Message-ID: <1488275286.20145.49.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20170220161549.39490-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20170227082735.GA2373@mail.corp.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20170227082735.GA2373@mail.corp.redhat.com> Sender: platform-driver-x86-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Benjamin Tissoires Cc: Linus Walleij , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Dmitry Torokhov , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Darren Hart , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2017-02-27 at 09:27 +0100, Benjamin Tissoires wrote: > On Feb 20 2017 or thereabouts, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > There are three possibilities in gpiod_count(): ACPI, OF, and > > platform data. > > > > Some of them return 0, which requires to be handled separately, > > though > > developers rather lazy and just shadow an actual error code. > > > > Let's make this API consistent by not allowing 0 in returned value. > > > > There are luckily only 3 users right now, one of them handles this > > properly, the rest is converted in this series. > > > > Series is supposed to go through GPIO tree. > > > > Andy Shevchenko (4): > >   gpio: acpi: Don't return 0 on acpi_gpio_count() > >   gpio: of: Don't return 0 on dt_gpio_count() > >   platform/x86: surface3_button: Propagate error from gpiod_count() > >   Input: soc_button_array - Propagate error from gpiod_count() > > Not sure if this still matters, but still: > Acked-by: Benjamin Tissoires I'm sure it is. Linus, is your plan to go through queue after merge window is closed? -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy