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: <1583780521-45702-1-git-send-email-opendmb@gmail.com>
 <CAMpxmJXNQQTxRWZSP0RZTUuefAk3+AeDMVeVkgERy7f9X=CBsA@mail.gmail.com> <7fcc5cb2-5fdb-d1cf-e55b-c0f2d407e072@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7fcc5cb2-5fdb-d1cf-e55b-c0f2d407e072@gmail.com>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Mar 2020 09:22:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMpxmJX40tfNUqrqDwa+GEGAD9QuLym=jLi2MPuQX-FZS2Z9sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] gpio: brcmstb: support gpio-line-names property
To:     Doug Berger <opendmb@gmail.com>
Cc:     Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@gmail.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com,
        linux-gpio <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        arm-soc <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

=C5=9Br., 11 mar 2020 o 20:03 Doug Berger <opendmb@gmail.com> napisa=C5=82(=
a):
>
> The label names are viewed as a convenience for the user and are not
> necessary for the proper functionality of the driver and device, so we
> don't want to prevent the driver from succeeding at probe due to an
> error in the gpio-line-names property. The bank->gc.names member is
> still made non-NULL which is what we really care about to prevent the
> misapplication of label names by devprop_gpiochip_set_names().
>
> In fact, it is expected that the device-tree will only include label
> strings up to the last GPIO of interest so the ENODATA error is
> considered a valid result to terminate any further labeling so there is
> no need for an error message in that case.
>
> Other error results are unexpected so an error message indicating the
> consequence of the error is appropriate here.
>
> I'm not sure which aspect is confusing to you, so it's not clear to me
> how best to comment the code. I can hazard a guess, but if you have a
> suggestion I'm happy to submit a v3.
>
> Thanks for taking the time to review this,
>     Doug

No it's fine, thank you for the explanation.

Bartosz