Hi Bartosz,
On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 at 11:06, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 2:02 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jun 2025 at 13:42, Wolfram Sang
> > <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > bankmask = mask[0] & GENMASK(chip->ngpio - 1, 0);
> > > > if (!bankmask)
> > > > - return;
> > > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > Doesn't that mean that the mask is invalid and we could return an error
> > > here? Or is '!bankmask' an expected use-case?
> >
> > That is a good question!
> >
> > I _think_ this really can't happen anymore, as the GPIO core is supposed
> > to check this against the valid mask? Or isn't it?
>
> Yes but this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the valid_mask?
> If it's about the number of GPIOs then that too is verified by GPIO
> core.
Sure, about the collection of valid GPIO offsets. So it cannot really
happen, and just bailing out with zero sounds fine to me?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
