Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190708082343.30726-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <CACRpkdb5xKHZja0mkd-wZJ+YHZpGJaDrkA0dv60MNYKXFcPK4w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMRc=MfB9R70QDqtjG5a5Roq1roeL78Ss5noytrY-7P=tY1OHA@mail.gmail.com> <CACRpkdaiZgK1EoaUxDtbm_GJHVjZU56e_qBQ-OF0mmwb5W8+tg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdaiZgK1EoaUxDtbm_GJHVjZU56e_qBQ-OF0mmwb5W8+tg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Sat, 20 Jul 2019 20:03:13 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJWDTkhuWhfSJ-fkJ6r+7a3kErXafQ_sJLVgMf=cA=1+aQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: don't WARN() on NULL descs if gpiolib is disabled
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Claus H . Stovgaard" <cst@phaseone.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

wt., 16 lip 2019 o 23:46 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> napisa=C5=
=82(a):
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 4:20 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
> > wt., 9 lip 2019 o 15:30 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> napisa=
=C5=82(a):
>
> > > I was thinking something like this in the stubs:
> > >
> > > gpiod_get[_index]() {
> > >     return POISON;
> > > }
> > >
> > > gpiod_get[_index]_optional() {
> > >    return NULL;
> > > }
> >
> > This is already being done.
>
> Ah it is.
>
> > > This way all gpiod_get() and optional calls are properly
> > > handled and the semantic that only _optional calls
> > > can return NULL is preserved. (Your patch would
> > > violate this.)
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't quite see how my patch
> > violates this behavior. :(
>
> I missed that we actually do pass a poison from the strict
> *get functions, mea culpa.
>
> Let's apply this, will you send me a pull request or shall I
> just try to apply it?
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij

I'll apply it to my local tree and send it for v5.3-rc2.

Bart