From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-dy1-f169.google.com (mail-dy1-f169.google.com [74.125.82.169]) (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 8BDBD320CAD for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:18:37 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=74.125.82.169 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1773123518; cv=none; b=tX8+gzqOtpgGvMXq/ZeziwFrqIIjBzeZBhGaSlYerI8rHwXHhVFMLUZLLGdbgzWN3hC07E/QXySDv0nx7bBqJ2hQMVBibskLBGpTSeGY9/fx6oNWh3map9W1LiPTBB0ktraNrE/bqpHbxA+dSRp6ZpdSnbPLmJx4lA5IAndzG8s= 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=74.125.82.169 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-f169.google.com with SMTP id 5a478bee46e88-2bdfc4b191fso7855891eec.1 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=rMlW9p/P9r7+Z/FDqfRHcrwtzyX6EaAVu6u7sAkMtoL4wp072V46B3QfzzFbptBogj QfiLRvVQzgO9J624ZRKbq9SETEfTSLZVYIFYxQyJ/6VBmDVbPdO4d75wPTQtiBILqULq derxXV++r/SJeKDD6OmfDgaJAmpIqBiWo+5yAtJ+m7gVEblDvz0lVcIy8otbAL2PLGVo 4Ov/XmQBvH+pUYI07l4WhM9twJQ2HRNWeVmVmmHD8q+GrVWrmfsH8Jq7fMovP9BwKwNu tT7EZkSDQOkI4YQiPuzNc+Y5MVyMZg49iJO0nlzF3pkgEmDtdTm7mTsgdVxLsvaFYPxJ JAeQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVEyFzpczTyHaqFcfaEKwl5roM9vXWfzz5DeoB9QSQD8LcHjWO0y5JLlTXbx76/pbrRXfV8i1oEqCBE6l4e4Dpidof7@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxdUYuNprBql/MSHfRWycoimE46rl0mLfwLeEy/Ycf08juxXT8f Ku1ej6BQp8zhNplykDmBn5uHv390laq6fS9GXM6oTTMRuO1RQyx2I+RN X-Gm-Gg: ATEYQzxLCGvCmHileQAYF0LpZ2he7k31hhzMrdfbRHLYORIXQgFmceHzsFLB4KDQuCo z+cY8Hnb/xjpCzKYlyq05JB0jb3HoDp+2Yt/r0C9JPDTtnNz3k5NmIW3VzHU+9/RasK7q7CZ4Ci 98dd7wCOx12hhesh3dOU/HZOx1IepQ0mOhlO6vUsummXV6jHn98zC7bqkwprUI9VqWksXm+XAI1 apSWd/ay/nc8bPrM/IfGa/MKBnaGkl//QWIz1b4Aj2PjoQKuCgpaK8M1iuremQ6RnyZfZV7JF8X pHJMkOvZQHFVm+FZQuGHZiNKJyipCwncVjBQU1XREBtnBEcNlMZGHQFZszLyPdwUUbyJFrHs90w 2qEeZLaHOMbDT+d+4BNjdxClX5IPUiBb85+dnVqs50M2TAtrgVse7ILlUk63jh4VfqUWsGmr0tP SbDnGhPS4pEW45b3sdU7zWJzk8DfS0/NSinnPh8jegv1EoFE4OVJYa6IsotXLHseV1Tz7+miHCV QA= 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: platform-driver-x86@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