Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: barco-p50-gpio: normalize return value of gpio_get

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.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 <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  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