| Message ID | 20170323202138.GA11912@dtor-ws |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should > immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to parsing > unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> Can I get some indication from Mika/Rafael/Andy whether this is correct? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 03:25:56PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should > > immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to parsing > > unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > > Can I get some indication from Mika/Rafael/Andy whether this is correct? Sorry, I saw the patch but then forgot to ack it. Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 2017-03-28 at 15:25 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should > > immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to > > parsing > > unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > > Can I get some indication from Mika/Rafael/Andy whether this is > correct? While Mika agrees on the change, I would like nevertheless to hear Hans' opinion or even Tested-by tag since it was his fix around those lines.
On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 13:21 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should > immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to > parsing > unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block. +Cc: Hans. Hans, do have any objections on this? Would you ideally give your Tested-by? > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 4 +++- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c > index a3faefa44f68..d3f9f028a37b 100644 > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c > @@ -572,8 +572,10 @@ struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct device > *dev, > } > > desc = acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, propname, idx, > &info); > - if (!IS_ERR(desc) || (PTR_ERR(desc) == > -EPROBE_DEFER)) > + if (!IS_ERR(desc)) > break; > + if (PTR_ERR(desc) == -EPROBE_DEFER) > + return ERR_CAST(desc); > } > > /* Then from plain _CRS GPIOs */ > -- > 2.12.1.500.gab5fba24ee-goog > >
HI, On 28-03-17 17:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 13:21 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should >> immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to >> parsing >> unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block. > > +Cc: Hans. > > Hans, do have any objections on this? Would you ideally give your > Tested-by? Looks good to me and also does not seem to break anything on my test devices, so: Acked-and-Tested-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Regards, Hans > >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c >> index a3faefa44f68..d3f9f028a37b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c >> @@ -572,8 +572,10 @@ struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct device >> *dev, >> } >> >> desc = acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, propname, idx, >> &info); >> - if (!IS_ERR(desc) || (PTR_ERR(desc) == >> -EPROBE_DEFER)) >> + if (!IS_ERR(desc)) >> break; >> + if (PTR_ERR(desc) == -EPROBE_DEFER) >> + return ERR_CAST(desc); >> } >> >> /* Then from plain _CRS GPIOs */ >> -- >> 2.12.1.500.gab5fba24ee-goog >> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, 2017-03-29 at 18:33 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > HI, > > On 28-03-17 17:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 13:21 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should > > > immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to > > > parsing > > > unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block. > > > > +Cc: Hans. > > > > Hans, do have any objections on this? Would you ideally give your > > Tested-by? > > Looks good to me and also does not seem to break anything on my test > devices, so: > > Acked-and-Tested-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> Thanks! Linus, I'm fully satisfied :-) > > Regards, > > Hans > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 4 +++- > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib- > > > acpi.c > > > index a3faefa44f68..d3f9f028a37b 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c > > > @@ -572,8 +572,10 @@ struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct > > > device > > > *dev, > > > } > > > > > > desc = acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, propname, > > > idx, > > > &info); > > > - if (!IS_ERR(desc) || (PTR_ERR(desc) == > > > -EPROBE_DEFER)) > > > + if (!IS_ERR(desc)) > > > break; > > > + if (PTR_ERR(desc) == -EPROBE_DEFER) > > > + return ERR_CAST(desc); > > > } > > > > > > /* Then from plain _CRS GPIOs */ > > > -- > > > 2.12.1.500.gab5fba24ee-goog > > > > > >
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should > immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to parsing > unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block. > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> Patch applied and tagged for stable with all ACKs and Tested-by's. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c index a3faefa44f68..d3f9f028a37b 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c @@ -572,8 +572,10 @@ struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct device *dev, } desc = acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, propname, idx, &info); - if (!IS_ERR(desc) || (PTR_ERR(desc) == -EPROBE_DEFER)) + if (!IS_ERR(desc)) break; + if (PTR_ERR(desc) == -EPROBE_DEFER) + return ERR_CAST(desc); } /* Then from plain _CRS GPIOs */
If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to parsing unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block. Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> --- drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)