On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 5:39 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 4:55 PM Lee Jones <lee@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2025 at 9:59 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > While it now returns void, it will soon be converted to return an > > > > integer instead. Don't do `return gpiod_set...`. > > > > > > > > Reported-by: kernel test robot <lkp@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202502121512.CmoMg9Q7-lkp@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/leds/leds-aw200xx.c | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/leds/leds-aw200xx.c b/drivers/leds/leds-aw200xx.c > > > > index 08cca128458c..fe223d363a5d 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/leds/leds-aw200xx.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/leds/leds-aw200xx.c > > > > @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ static void aw200xx_enable(const struct aw200xx *const chip) > > > > > > > > static void aw200xx_disable(const struct aw200xx *const chip) > > > > { > > > > - return gpiod_set_value_cansleep(chip->hwen, 0); > > > > + gpiod_set_value_cansleep(chip->hwen, 0); > > > > } > > > > > > > > static int aw200xx_probe_get_display_rows(struct device *dev, > > > > -- > > > > 2.45.2 > > > > > > > > > > Lee, Pavel: > > > > > > If this is OK for you, can you please provide me with an immutable > > > branch so that I can pull it into the GPIO tree? It seems it's the > > > only such use-case in the tree apart from the gpio.h header that I can > > > fix locally. Alternatively you can just Ack this and let me take it > > > through the GPIO tree. > > > > I'm okay with it, but why do you need it? > > > > For historical reasons gpiod_set_value() and its variants don't have a > return value. However, we now support all kinds of hardware that can > fail to set a line value: I2C, SPI, USB (hot-unpluggable chips), etc. > I want to rework the GPIO subsystem to make these functions return int > and become able to indicate failures. Build-bot complained about my > series[1] and pointed at this driver after the interface for > gpiod_set_value_cansleep() changed in patch 1. This is why I want to > fix it, get it into my tree and then pick up the series. > > Sorry for not explaining it in detail earlier. > > Bart > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/20250211-gpio-set-retval-v1-0-52d3d613d7d3@xxxxxxxxxx/ Is it fine for you if I take it through the GPIO tree? Could you please leave your Ack under the patch if so? Thanks in advance, Bartosz
