Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] gpiolib: Follow usual pattern for gpiod_remove_lookup_table() call

[Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jan 4, 2021 at 3:32 PM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2021 at 03:24:47PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 9:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > The usual pattern for the remove calls, like gpiod_remove_lookup_table(),
> > > is to be NULL-aware, i.o.w. become a no-op whenever parameter is NULL.
> > > Update gpiod_remove_lookup_table() call to follow this pattern.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 4 ++++
> > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > index b02cc2abd3b6..611d6ea82d75 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > @@ -3460,6 +3460,10 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiod_add_lookup_table);
> > >   */
> > >  void gpiod_remove_lookup_table(struct gpiod_lookup_table *table)
> > >  {
> > > +       /* Nothing to remove */
> > > +       if (!table)
> > > +               return;
> > > +
> > >         mutex_lock(&gpio_lookup_lock);
> > >
> > >         list_del(&table->list);
> > > --
> > > 2.29.2
> > >
> >
> > Applied, thanks!
>
> Thanks. Though I think it can be also applied to I涎 tree since dependency?
> Any tags / immutable branch for Wolfram?
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko
>
>

Oops I assumed this is independent. In that case:

Acked-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Wolfram, please take it through the i2c tree.

Bartosz