Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 6 Oct 2022 14:04:20 +0000
From:   Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Daniel Scally <djrscally@gmail.com>,
        Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@linux.intel.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] device property: Fix documentation for
 *_match_string() APIs
Message-ID: <Yz7gZF2ktEM3JVoJ@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
References: <20221006123807.37014-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <Yz7N9b3qibyaPAhJ@paasikivi.fi.intel.com>
 <Yz7QKTrKtjh3RTYg@smile.fi.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Yz7QKTrKtjh3RTYg@smile.fi.intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 03:55:05PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 12:45:41PM +0000, Sakari Ailus wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 03:38:07PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > The returned value on success is an index of the matching string,
> > > starting from 0. Reflect this in the documentation.
> 
> > > Fixes: 3f5c8d318785 ("device property: Add fwnode_property_match_string()")
> 
> ...
> 
> > > - * Return: %0 if the property was found (success),
> > > + * Return: index, starting from %0, if the property was found (success),
> > >   *	   %-EINVAL if given arguments are not valid,
> > >   *	   %-ENODATA if the property does not have a value,
> > >   *	   %-EPROTO if the property is not an array of strings,
> > 
> > There are other error codes that can be returned such as -ENOMEM or what
> > else may be returned by fwnode_property_read_string_array().
> > 
> > I might just refer to fwnode_property_read_string_array() and document here
> > those specific to these functions.
> > 
> > Just FYI... I guess this could be a separate patch, too.
> 
> Right, I think we would rather do an incremental change since that will be
> more intrusive and would not be exactly the fix (improvement?).

It's a fix in documentation. It's perhaps unlikely a bug would have been
introduced because of what was missing.

> 
> > Reviewed-by: Sakari Ailus <sakari.ailus@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Thanks!

You're welcome!

-- 
Sakari Ailus