Re: [PATCH] input: gpio_keys: Don't report events on gpio failure

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 8:59 AM, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So I'd say it makes sense to propagate errors returned by the driver's
> get() hook. This might contradict some of our earlier statements about
> simplifying the GPIO API, but is preferrable to having to make a
> decision as to which valid value to return if the driver fails...
>
> It should then be made very clear in the documentation that the only
> positive values ever returned by the GPIO API will be 0 and 1 (we
> already have a clamping mechanism for that IIRC), and that negative
> values are propagated as-is.
>
> Linus, does that seem reasonable to you? Does anyone has the intention
> to address that one or should I add it to my short-term TODO list?

I'm aligned with this. Go ahead on this path.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html