On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 08:45:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 05:15:01PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 05:13:55PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > Given the intent behind gpiod_get_optional() and friends it does not make
> > > sense to return -ENOSYS when GPIOLIB is disabled: the driver is expected
> > > to
> > > work just fine without gpio so let's behave as if gpio was not found.
> > > Otherwise we have to special-case -ENOSYS in drivers.
> > >
> > > Note that there was objection that someone might forget to enable GPIOLIB
> > > when dealing with a platform that has device that actually specifies
> > > optional gpio and we'll break it. I find this unconvincing as that would
> > > have to be the *only GPIO* in the system, which is extremely unlikely.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
>
> I don't like this patch and so I wonder what I wrote that could be
> interpreted as suggesting this patch. For now I'd say only
>
> Nacked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <[email protected]>
>
> is justified.
Oh, it seems I really sent such a RFC patch some time ago. Still I think
it's wrong to do that and that we need something like a
lookup-only-GPIOLIB that implements:
def gpio_get_optional(...):
if a gpio is specified:
return -ENOSYS
else:
return NULL
if you really want save some bytes and disable the full-fledged GPIOLIB.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
