On Sat, 2018-07-21 at 14:17 +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> On Saturday, 21 July 2018 12:56:15 MSK Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 12:31:07PM +0000, Marcel Ziswiler wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-07-20 at 13:16 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > > > ac97->sync_gpio = of_get_named_gpio(pdev-
> > > > > >dev.of_node,
> > > > >
> > > > > "nvidia,codec-
> > > > > sync-
> > > > >
> > > > > gpio", 0);
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!gpio_is_valid(ac97->sync_gpio)) {
> > > > >
> > > > > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no codec-sync GPIO
> > > > > supplied\n");
> > > > > + ret = ac97->sync_gpio;
> > > > > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "no codec-sync GPIO
> > > > > supplied:
> > > > > %d\n", ret);
> > > > >
> > > > > goto err_clk_put;
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > >
> > > > This isn't reporting an error code associated with the attempt
> > > > to
> > > > find a
> > > > codec-sync GPIO, it's the result of some other operation.
> > >
> > > What exactly is then the of_get_named_gpio() above please doing
> > > if
> > > not getting the codec sync GPIO? I am not following you, sorry.
> >
> > It's not in any way involved in setting the value of ret, whatever
> > value
> > that has it's nothing to do with that operation.
>
> The comment to gpio_is_valid() says that it "Returns GPIO number to
> use with
> Linux generic GPIO API, or one of the errno value on the error
> condition".
> Comment doesn't explicitly states that the returned GPIO number is
> always
> valid, but it is kinda implied.
Do you mean I should be assigning the return value of gpio_is_valid()
to ret and use that instead?��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{��נ���^n�r������&��z�ޗ�zf���h���~����������_��+v���)ߣ�
