HI,
On 28-03-17 17:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 13:21 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should
immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to
parsing
unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block.
+Cc: Hans.
Hans, do have any objections on this? Would you ideally give your
Tested-by?
Looks good to me and also does not seem to break anything on my test
devices, so:
Acked-and-Tested-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Hans
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
index a3faefa44f68..d3f9f028a37b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c
@@ -572,8 +572,10 @@ struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct device
*dev,
}
desc = acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, propname, idx,
&info);
- if (!IS_ERR(desc) || (PTR_ERR(desc) ==
-EPROBE_DEFER))
+ if (!IS_ERR(desc))
break;
+ if (PTR_ERR(desc) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
+ return ERR_CAST(desc);
}
/* Then from plain _CRS GPIOs */
--
2.12.1.500.gab5fba24ee-goog
--
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
