Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] ACPI / gpio: do not fall back to parsing _CRS when we get a deferral | From | Hans de Goede <> | Date | Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:33:22 +0200 |
| |
HI,
On 28-03-17 17:04, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 13:21 -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >> If, while locating GPIOs by name, we get probe deferral, we should >> immediately report it to caller rather than trying to fall back to >> parsing >> unnamed GPIOs from _CRS block. > > +Cc: Hans. > > Hans, do have any objections on this? Would you ideally give your > Tested-by?
Looks good to me and also does not seem to break anything on my test devices, so:
Acked-and-Tested-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>
Regards,
Hans
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> >> --- >> drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c | 4 +++- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c >> index a3faefa44f68..d3f9f028a37b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c >> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib-acpi.c >> @@ -572,8 +572,10 @@ struct gpio_desc *acpi_find_gpio(struct device >> *dev, >> } >> >> desc = acpi_get_gpiod_by_index(adev, propname, idx, >> &info); >> - if (!IS_ERR(desc) || (PTR_ERR(desc) == >> -EPROBE_DEFER)) >> + if (!IS_ERR(desc)) >> break; >> + if (PTR_ERR(desc) == -EPROBE_DEFER) >> + return ERR_CAST(desc); >> } >> >> /* Then from plain _CRS GPIOs */ >> -- >> 2.12.1.500.gab5fba24ee-goog >> >> >
| |