> > > > > On 18:04 Fri 10 May , Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> > > > > > Patch adds gpio_to_desc helper for validate GPIO.
> > > > > > A bit optimization is performed (about -250 bytes on ARM).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Shiyan <shc_work@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c | 97 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > > > > index 6398268..d7aa094 100644
> > > > > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > > > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> > > > > > @@ -32,20 +32,30 @@ static int gpio_ensure_requested(struct gpio_info *gi, int gpio)
> > > > > > return gpio_request(gpio, "gpio");
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +static struct gpio_info *gpio_to_desc(unsigned gpio)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + if (!gpio_is_valid(gpio))
> > > > > put the WARN too as we need to known a gpio_xxx is used on a non valid gpio
> > > >
> > > > Original bb code does not contain any warnings here. So if it really
> > > > necessary it can be added later.
> > >
> > > put it as we keep the code inline with the kernel a key point for sync
> >
> > And this warning avoid my second patch to remove checks when we are
> > call gpio_free/set/get etc... with non existent (optional) gpios.
>
> yes as this patch break the compatibility with the kernel sorry NACK on it
>
> > I strongly do not want to add it.
>
> if you can gpio_xxx with an invalid gpio it's wrong
> and as we keep the same API as in linux we need to WARN
> as you DO need to check the gpio is valid before calling the gpio lib
>
> we keep api in sync to simplify maintainance between barebox and the kernel
I prefer to add one warning to gpio_request only. It can be useful for debug
and not annoy if gpio is really is optional. OK?
---
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
