Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-149212-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240221213208.17914-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <CAMRc=Mfh-ojboNUELXfszKUbZRfeZn9vsN-HMTdMQv6my6ZrdQ@mail.gmail.com> <Zh-oku-XzpcH_8FH@smile.fi.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zh-oku-XzpcH_8FH@smile.fi.intel.com>
From: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 22:47:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMRc=MfO_7smzcG2+FM2EHNb1FbqS7PbfJuzBH6gL6KXT2fVUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rfc, PATCH v1 1/1] gpiolib: Get rid of never false
 gpio_is_valid() calls
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>, 
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 12:46=E2=80=AFPM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 02:06:05PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 10:32=E2=80=AFPM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > In the cases when gpio_is_valid() is called with unsigned parameter
> > > the result is always true in the GPIO library code, hence the check
> > > for false won't ever be true. Get rid of such calls.
> > >
> > > While at it, move GPIO device base to be unsigned to clearly show
> > > it won't ever be negative. This requires a new definition for the
> > > maximum GPIO number in the system.
>
> > > ---
> >
> > It looks like a risky change that late in the release cycle. I want to
> > avoid some CI problems at rc6. Please resend it once v6.9-rc1 is
> > tagged.
>
> Not sure why resend, but I missed that somehow. Can you consider applying=
 it?
>

Applied, thanks!

Bart