On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 11:04:33AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> At this point in gpio_keys_polled_probe(), button->gpiod contains either
> a pointer to a GPIO descriptor or NULL, because:
> - gpio_keys_polled_get_devtree_pdata() fills in button->gpiod only if
> devm_get_gpiod_from_child() succeeded,
> - gpio_to_desc() returns NULL on failure, not an ERR_PTR(),
> - button->gpiod is untouched if it was NULL, and button->gpio is not
> valid.
>
> Hence check for NULL only, and return -EINVAL on failure.
>
> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> Question: Should it return -ENOENT instead?
>
> next-20160219:drivers/leds/leds-gpio.c uses -EINVAL, too.
> ---
> drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c
> index 62bdb1d48c49dbd9..1ef3c66099a50d72 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys_polled.c
> @@ -330,8 +330,8 @@ static int gpio_keys_polled_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> button->gpiod = gpio_to_desc(button->gpio);
> }
>
> - if (IS_ERR(button->gpiod))
> - return PTR_ERR(button->gpiod);
> + if (!button->gpiod)
> + return -EINVAL;
I wonder if we should move this check into body of
if (!button->gpiod && gpio_is_valid(button->gpio)) {
...
}
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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
