On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41 AM, Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But then the question first goes to Linus & co. > > gpio_chip->get() can return a negative value to indicate errors (and did > so in this case), all parts of the API seems indicates that we can get > an error (int vs bool). Ooops. > Should we change _gpiod_get_raw_value() to propagate this error? Yes for now. Can you patch it? :) > Or > should we just ignore this issue and propagate an error as GPIO high > reading? I don't know about the future. In some sense GPIOs are so smallish resources that errorhandling every call to read/write them seem to be a royal PITA. That is why I wanted to switch them to bool and get rid of the problem, but now I also see that maybe that was not such a smart idea, if errors do occur on the set/get_value path. Alexandre? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
