Hi Marcel, On 10 October 2014 16:44, Marcel Ziswiler <mar...@ziswiler.com> wrote: > Hi Simon > > On Fri, 2014-10-10 at 16:22 -0600, Simon Glass wrote: >> Well you fixed that bug. Are there any others? > > Well, not in any of our boards but a short grep through the sources > reveals dozens of places where GPIOs are still reserved with NULL > labels. Happy crashing and subsequent bisecting for all them folks I > guess.
Ah OK. It sounds like people know that the driver ignores the name and so NULL is OK, and that is no longer true. The function signature for gpio_request() just says: * @param label User label for this GPIO with no indication that NULL is OK. So I did not see this as a semantic change. But we have to deal with reality. > >> Checking for obviously >> invalid args is not typically done due to the code overhead (e.g try >> to use assert() which is compiled out in production code). > > Agreed but rather sad if the semantics certainly changes. > > Anyway, I give in. Let's just drop it then. > I think we need to have this patch due to the existing code. Thanks for explaining it and sorry for making it so painful. Acked-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
