From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-dy1-f177.google.com (mail-dy1-f177.google.com [74.125.82.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A78F31D726 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:18:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.82.177 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773123518; cv=none; b=PjcfVbZa7zmtf+LjqE9ZOSMkX7xzcQVOemAI81x46btXw8Yvik0Ag6Suhtr4RAVS2eMTXQa+61H79xZpn6+Hzqf1hxtT5WHLW3xJuCgixb/b6f78GXUo+k2fwF+wQY13OgCiVXqBgxlu/8FjtndhQdU/QHYgp0iq6LRAhi3iKNQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773123518; c=relaxed/simple; bh=VlgOLU/SAL8F0zd+At1U9RW8a1ngZacbFmBgI40qeF8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=BMjaph/JkMmd11d3Q02Cv2yjjruTrmmt36JMS6z6gFqH3wm88URfuBuA81meymmXJPM4y/gnr57IDIDaJq72VSxKrFQdfFRKxWN2Db3goA5L1hYkfIBrS41lZ1LSeqSybEdEv4HvrvM2nlNtZtHD6BI6hDRgnEbsg67uK45rvB0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=UAgVhH6+; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.82.177 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="UAgVhH6+" Received: by mail-dy1-f177.google.com with SMTP id 5a478bee46e88-2b4520f6b32so15017887eec.0 for ; Mon, 09 Mar 2026 23:18:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1773123517; x=1773728317; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jjtQZnmo8Gwc+dKRjcrzPdJaL+KCrJVCb46smQt/ILU=; b=UAgVhH6+2GarzBsrOc8PA8/PZu7drUyKWT3wijPecI1XHM9hH1Y9DP+kZKSke2LnMC yY1yOHcX4mlkHHfZEobjK5g+6QLVV4fqkpq4OxlP9ti1Yj9sPeJ4i2Xoa1uatL/kG9he eci7vzkhykTu/G8yCkPzEiOFITJttNWAMy0qcbIF4Uo/cY0NfGvg4GfYmfiiY9rLvBO2 K8faDuKDsoHAdhbHDFECN3hvynrSTx9Nn5gMCP6MSj11uK0xkZUPexJlTbRJtPGqm42K bg2aDyxPx/NEYTfdYowe97fd6BijtxcrhuwA1vhOxhBCDWVG/Cuu7Q+Q6KnXpPixhHVI f5jQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1773123517; x=1773728317; h=in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-gg :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=jjtQZnmo8Gwc+dKRjcrzPdJaL+KCrJVCb46smQt/ILU=; b=chxo2wd/EbmqtdfQMYjkBYfUQINAauWPaGdikCvmfIru/6UholiU+/qnT1olcfHweo klPJLfkPryUQAABuJx5AEBrka1htKKcc+bTcAnvMkMdJ0Zpabh5WJQ+e7L+2IWbA9RN8 ckzR6bWV2DckV0z/3N/sWxX5T3fttIz5J7DAUpRK3XtH4O0CZ3KCld+NVPItqMH18+Po H1VWso/5r52vrx4cHh/d86a9Ir78DMnNH2KoUgP49ZpDPHhwq88g1vRCkPTb/7WxHwe8 gmh7ao4qRpkDUqynfbSqjzFoXDZcDB3hpYpAUql0qLm8Xa9+yDTh2rC7dQSBIdKfzwCf 4J7w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXpfvUxKis+ZJn+sarLThZ3javgYgaJKk95amovriE79Wi+E7N7+sQV5MRlf5fzDYB5Z6efB4zOL5df@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw90jMQajBmmRyBy+wi1WBRX4fF2s20DwQGnqvxLVvemxgLWMVP QpuihR5I53mgHaDIwERfbDvgkTQudHuTLhtAbkfQouWjKujMc28QjhEs X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzwZTVT7iY8hnR4uAY0dnRdbc+ussjgVgBqQy3dbmo1ih9kjLzBhTdH4r7klFlx ZYQfXINuLjcZM6ihlNuK46kVbNYkUhggT/C/ur7x+RfjJ/8dp2FBK/jYpV643v0RCFfPJQOR2B8 ThRWcZTj1BgvAFuigX5VMOpOrO7xNKATBuUoQOqQzuHwytQZ+JXgPYtGcERjKDHj3LaQhK8VKUC 7i+jAhCGC6zaME++EF5CeUDfNPGROjSPmnsIaeotP3wtPrPXdg0hSj2LD6sY98fTdZdJ7ZIhe2F CDog94nAur98hO24MI4iqTzfSi3biL2wkHbaqUupE3iOPV4z4QKTl5IeYkrPTJyBrKdeb0aykCF zzhWl3ZFJfsoyWBecj2OcZZJ9VYBR4P7R9at85t659HOShwZ0M4sfvN3MMqSbach4QhSIVOvs1l fR4JNW4Ac2KD22StV5ms9LpIzNoVno++nku56PreEwe91zz/D9o6DE+zn+wYeSoW/qv4YWJcaU3 ao= X-Received: by 2002:a05:7300:1489:b0:2b8:6ae5:79c3 with SMTP id 5a478bee46e88-2be4e090105mr5356857eec.38.1773123516637; Mon, 09 Mar 2026 23:18:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com ([2a00:79e0:2ebe:8:2a0a:17c2:21e7:dcfb]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5a478bee46e88-2be4f984cf5sm13202342eec.33.2026.03.09.23.18.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 09 Mar 2026 23:18:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2026 23:18:33 -0700 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Ilpo =?utf-8?B?SsOkcnZpbmVu?= Cc: Santosh Kumar Yadav , Peter Korsgaard , Hans de Goede , Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , platform-driver-x86@vger.kernel.org, LKML , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: barco-p50-gpio: normalize return value of gpio_get Message-ID: References: <5d561d59-1691-fcd0-868c-fc44db1dac92@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=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5d561d59-1691-fcd0-868c-fc44db1dac92@linux.intel.com> On Mon, Feb 23, 2026 at 04:11:10PM +0200, Ilpo Järvinen wrote: > On Wed, 18 Feb 2026, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > The GPIO get callback is expected to return 0 or 1 (or a negative error > > code). Ensure that the value returned by p50_gpio_get() is normalized > > to the [0, 1] range. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov > > --- > > drivers/platform/x86/barco-p50-gpio.c | 5 ++++- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/barco-p50-gpio.c b/drivers/platform/x86/barco-p50-gpio.c > > index 6f13e81f98fb..360ffd8505d6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/platform/x86/barco-p50-gpio.c > > +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/barco-p50-gpio.c > > @@ -275,8 +275,11 @@ static int p50_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned int offset) > > mutex_lock(&p50->lock); > > > > ret = p50_send_mbox_cmd(p50, P50_MBOX_CMD_READ_GPIO, gpio_params[offset], 0); > > - if (ret == 0) > > + if (ret == 0) { > > ret = p50_read_mbox_reg(p50, P50_MBOX_REG_DATA); > > + if (ret >= 0) > > + ret = !!ret; > > + } > > > > mutex_unlock(&p50->lock); > > A simpler flow would be preferrable over all that nesting. Is this > logically correct: > > guard(mutex)(p50->lock); > ret = p50_send_mbox_cmd(p50, P50_MBOX_CMD_READ_GPIO, gpio_params[offset], 0); > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > ret = p50_read_mbox_reg(p50, P50_MBOX_REG_DATA); > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > return !!ret; Yes, but I wanted to minimize the amount of change. Maybe I should send a followup patch converting to guard()? Thanks. -- Dmitry