From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4934313C679; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:46:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713350809; cv=none; b=L+lInuyK1F1Oi/J98SfU+8DLYFUuh5VHIcyfLElETDrnL+UW0okKFgNHAuVGY9RL2S8TzG/773liHf9Ztz4EShjZh7GAAlAEIKcvlXdWCNKWy0469RgGhkaZOIkHq9WH1NTqzVZMTfyZRHZI7CLOSOUXAYhLuAxy1JNAEquYTRo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713350809; c=relaxed/simple; bh=zRUl1g1oCuh2NUNoJLoN8viN6QzNopdu5zeZVVRrzQM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=ZfxxSiph5BJGZh9VDvtd4lS5Feb9kpnuKCxk3J8FiNq3uHxjKFk1Hu+gPtpOvTEIYjUsNIsy4QtxM9h5dy78oS3rzZyHiz0C5AXyhJEY/MnrK55NvYZK8JVm90prGzuBNgDjEv2p11iNOZqlymBO7YBIyON8uruwPoyN911wP/g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=PWdzLCmT; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="PWdzLCmT" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1713350808; x=1744886808; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to; bh=zRUl1g1oCuh2NUNoJLoN8viN6QzNopdu5zeZVVRrzQM=; b=PWdzLCmT6FuV9yGDScsua9hS0vKA5dCWz2HpWv2nmbLxFVTCUtrzBW/c P+wtzumMLz7ncBXaf/qATdSic5TUsV8dH4++Rmu5abZMLx4vUUdgk9zJo ASATKIakH1qFeH0jc+Ct3cz+aLx/P0kz0DeQ3hKe8c8GVNt8Io+qtspDA wlhuJgO7V46rC+ikphE2964ROXvtHBP7i42GD+EfJ+rVcH+WO4oobHmAo x8Tz02ySELpUQ3BUH8VjD7kSoXWD+PkUgWEYKRkllJiKdZAqwHHvYxVya NU3fm0nVAFKMSrBibzM53wK/GZfEk339YDpmNw44000dP8rr1d67DWPz5 w==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: eIC3Qzc1Rpmhh7e3DEYplA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: CJZXqm2SRdqWTrPyWOlXnA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11046"; a="9384934" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,209,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="9384934" Received: from orviesa002.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.142]) by fmvoesa110.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Apr 2024 03:46:48 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 7xesHoykSlmDYwOgGmdBNQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 0o9K/sRaR/iYccEKwJwRfg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.07,209,1708416000"; d="scan'208";a="53539555" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by orviesa002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Apr 2024 03:46:46 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rx2oN-00000004zgo-17WX; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:46:43 +0300 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 13:46:42 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Bartosz Golaszewski Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski , Linus Walleij , Arnd Bergmann , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [rfc, PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: Get rid of never false gpio_is_valid() calls Message-ID: References: <20240221213208.17914-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:06:05PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:32 PM Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > > > > In the cases when gpio_is_valid() is called with unsigned parameter > > the result is always true in the GPIO library code, hence the check > > for false won't ever be true. Get rid of such calls. > > > > While at it, move GPIO device base to be unsigned to clearly show > > it won't ever be negative. This requires a new definition for the > > maximum GPIO number in the system. > > --- > > It looks like a risky change that late in the release cycle. I want to > avoid some CI problems at rc6. Please resend it once v6.9-rc1 is > tagged. Not sure why resend, but I missed that somehow. Can you consider applying it? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko