On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:43:02AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 5:15 PM, Andy Shevchenko > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's unusual to have error checking like (ret <= 0) in cases when > > counting GPIO resources. In case when it's mandatory we propagate the > > error (-ENOENT), otherwise we don't use the result. > > > > This makes consistent behaviour across all possible variants called in > > gpiod_count(). > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> > > Mika/Rafael, can you look at this patch?
Acked-by: Mika Westerberg <[email protected]>
