Hi David, On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 23:48, David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Add a new gpiod_multi_set_value_cansleep() helper function with fewer > parameters than gpiod_set_array_value_cansleep(). > > Calling gpiod_set_array_value_cansleep() can get quite verbose. In many > cases, the first arguments all come from the same struct gpio_descs, so > having a separate function where we can just pass that cuts down on the > boilerplate. > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for your patch! > --- a/include/linux/gpio/consumer.h > +++ b/include/linux/gpio/consumer.h > @@ -655,4 +655,11 @@ static inline void gpiod_unexport(struct gpio_desc *desc) > > #endif /* CONFIG_GPIOLIB && CONFIG_GPIO_SYSFS */ > > +static inline int gpiod_multi_set_value_cansleep(struct gpio_descs *descs, > + unsigned long *value_bitmap) > +{ > + return gpiod_set_array_value_cansleep(descs->ndescs, descs->desc, > + descs->info, value_bitmap); I am wondering whether this needs a check for !IS_ERR_OR_NULL(descs), to handle the !CONFIG_GPIOLIB and gpiod_get_array_optional() cases? Slightly related: shouldn't gpiod_put_array() (both the implementation and the !CONFIG_GPIOLIB dummy) allow the caller to pass NULL, to streamline the gpiod_get_array_optional() case? > +} > + > #endif Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds