On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 01:34:56PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 27/09/2023 11:47 pm, Linus Walleij wrote: > > - As the probe() code is very insistent on getting valid > > GPIOs out of the device before it will continue, there > > is no point to carry all the code handling the GPIOs as > > optional, drop all these checks. > Isn't it allowing them to be optional as long as of_get_named_gpio() returns > -ENODEV (which I guess may come out of the chip->of_xlate callback)? Or is > it implied that that's never actually been able to happen? Right, I *think* it's just trying to open code optional GPIO support (possibly it predates the core helpers?).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
