On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 08:45:06AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 05:15:01PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 05:13:55PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Given the intent behind gpiod_get_optional() and friends it does not make > > > sense to return -ENOSYS when GPIOLIB is disabled: the driver is expected to > > > work just fine without gpio so let's behave as if gpio was not found. > > > Otherwise we have to special-case -ENOSYS in drivers. > > > > > > Note that there was objection that someone might forget to enable GPIOLIB > > > when dealing with a platform that has device that actually specifies > > > optional gpio and we'll break it. I find this unconvincing as that would > > > have to be the *only GPIO* in the system, which is extremely unlikely. > > > > > > Suggested-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I don't like this patch and so I wonder what I wrote that could be > interpreted as suggesting this patch. For now I'd say only > > Nacked-by: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > is justified. Oh, it seems I really sent such a RFC patch some time ago. Still I think it's wrong to do that and that we need something like a lookup-only-GPIOLIB that implements: def gpio_get_optional(...): if a gpio is specified: return -ENOSYS else: return NULL if you really want save some bytes and disable the full-fledged GPIOLIB. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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