On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri 28 Aug 09:44 PDT 2015, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > >> It's possible to have gpio chips hanging off unreliable remote buses >> where the get() operation will fail to acquire a readout of the current >> gpio state. Propagate these errors to the consumer so that they can >> act on, retry or ignore these failing reads, instead of treating them as >> the line being held high. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 21 ++++++++++++++------- >> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c >> index 3b5e516298e0..dc17dbf8c234 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c >> @@ -1173,15 +1173,16 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiod_is_active_low); >> * that the GPIO was actually requested. >> */ >> >> -static bool _gpiod_get_raw_value(const struct gpio_desc *desc) >> +static int _gpiod_get_raw_value(const struct gpio_desc *desc) >> { >> struct gpio_chip *chip; >> - bool value; >> int offset; >> + int value; >> >> chip = desc->chip; >> offset = gpio_chip_hwgpio(desc); >> - value = chip->get ? chip->get(chip, offset) : false; >> + value = chip->get ? chip->get(chip, offset) : -EIO; > > Linus, Alexandre, please feel free to apply this with -ENOTSUPP in > accordance to Alexandre's comment in [1], if you prefer that. I picked > -EIO as that's what's used in most other places when the get() op is > missing. > > Maybe we should follow up with separate patch to make that consistent? I will let Linus decide which value is the more appropriate, the patch looks solid to me! Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks! -- 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