Hi,
Le 14/08/2019 à 12:20, Geert Uytterhoeven a écrit :
> Hi Uwe,
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:36 AM Uwe Kleine-König
> <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:29:22AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Since commit 1d267ea6539f2663 ("serial: mctrl-gpio: simplify init
>>> routine"), mctrl_gpio_init() returns failure if the assignment to any
>>> member of the gpio array results in an error pointer.
>>> Since commit c359522194593815 ("serial: mctrl_gpio: Avoid probe failures
>>> in case of missing gpiolib"), mctrl_gpio_to_gpiod() returns NULL in the
>>> !CONFIG_GPIOLIB case.
>>> Hence there is no longer a need to check for mctrl_gpio_to_gpiod()
>>> returning an error value. A simple NULL check is sufficient.
>>>
>>> This follows the spirit of commit 445df7ff3fd1a0a9 ("serial: mctrl-gpio:
>>> drop usages of IS_ERR_OR_NULL") in the mctrl-gpio core.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c | 12 ++++--------
>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c b/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c
>>> index 19a85d6fe3d20541..e9620a81166b7dc1 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c
>>> @@ -303,32 +303,28 @@ static unsigned int atmel_get_lines_status(struct uart_port *port)
>>>
>>> mctrl_gpio_get(atmel_port->gpios, &ret);
>>>
>>> - if (!IS_ERR_OR_NULL(mctrl_gpio_to_gpiod(atmel_port->gpios,
>>> - UART_GPIO_CTS))) {
>>> + if (mctrl_gpio_to_gpiod(atmel_port->gpios, UART_GPIO_CTS)) {
>>> if (ret & TIOCM_CTS)
>>> status &= ~ATMEL_US_CTS;
>>> else
>>> status |= ATMEL_US_CTS;
>>> }
>>
>> The change is fine, but it seems the atmel driver doesn't use mctrl_gpio
>> as expected (at least as expected by me). IMHO driving the hardware
>> function of the CTS pin shouldn't be conditional on the presence of a
>> cts-gpio. Is there a reason not to just drop the if completely?
>
> The above code returns the hardware status if CTS is not a GPIO, and
> returns (overrides with) the GPIO status if CTS is a GPIO.
> Isn't that correct, or am I missing something?
Yes, that's correct.
