Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Feb 2024 15:47:09 +0200 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 08/23] gpio: sysfs: use gpio_device_find() to iterate over existing devices |
| |
On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:39:40PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 2:38 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 02:19:10PM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 5, 2024 at 1:36 PM Andy Shevchenko > > > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 10:34:03AM +0100, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
..
> > > > > +static int gpiofind_sysfs_register(struct gpio_chip *gc, void *data) > > > > > +{ > > > > > + struct gpio_device *gdev = gc->gpiodev; > > > > > + int ret; > > > > > + > > > > > + if (gdev->mockdev) > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > + > > > > > + ret = gpiochip_sysfs_register(gdev); > > > > > + if (ret) > > > > > + chip_err(gc, "failed to register the sysfs entry: %d\n", ret); > > > > > > > > > + return 0; > > > > > > > > ??? > > > > What the point of function to be int if you effectively ignore this by always > > returning 0? > > > > Because the signature of the callback expects an int to be returned?
But why do you return 0 instead of ret?
> > > Not sure what the ... and ??? mean? The commit message should have > > > read "... traverse it from gpiofind_sysfs_register()" I agree but the > > > latter? > > > > I didn't realize this may not be obvious :-(. > > > > > > > +}
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |