[PATCH v6 3/3] pinctrl: Add Xilinx ZynqMP pinctrl driver support

[Sai Krishna Potthuri]

Hi Andy Shevchenko,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sai Krishna Potthuri
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2021 11:04 AM
> To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko at gmail.com>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>; Rob Herring
> <robh+dt at kernel.org>; Michal Simek <michals at xilinx.com>; Greg Kroah-
> Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>; linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-
> kernel at vger.kernel.org>; devicetree <devicetree at vger.kernel.org>; open
> list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM <linux-gpio at vger.kernel.org>; git <git at xilinx.com>;
> saikrishna12468 at gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 3/3] pinctrl: Add Xilinx ZynqMP pinctrl driver support
> 
> Hi Andy Shevchenko,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko at gmail.com>
> > Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 7:35 PM
> > To: Sai Krishna Potthuri <lakshmis at xilinx.com>
> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>; Rob Herring
> > <robh+dt at kernel.org>; Michal Simek <michals at xilinx.com>; Greg Kroah-
> > Hartman <gregkh at linuxfoundation.org>; linux-arm Mailing List <linux-arm-
> > kernel at lists.infradead.org>; Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-
> > kernel at vger.kernel.org>; devicetree <devicetree at vger.kernel.org>; open
> > list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM <linux-gpio at vger.kernel.org>; git <git at xilinx.com>;
> > saikrishna12468 at gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] pinctrl: Add Xilinx ZynqMP pinctrl driver
> support
...
> >
> > > > > +               ret = zynqmp_pm_pinctrl_get_config(pin, param, &arg);
> > > > > +               if (arg != PM_PINCTRL_BIAS_PULL_UP)
> > > > > +                       return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > Error code being shadowed. Instead check it here properly.
> >
> > > Are you mentioning the case where ret is also a non-zero?
> > > If yes, then I will update this check to
> > > if (!ret && arg != PM_PINCTRL_BIAS_PULL_UP)
> > >         return -EINVAL;
> >
> > No, this is wrong in the same way.
> >
> > > ret non-zero case, we are handling at the end of switch case.
> >
> > I meant that you need to pass the real return code to the (upper) caller.
> Here we are checking for valid argument and not the return value of the API.
> If the read value(argument) is not valid and return value of the API is
> zero (SUCCESS) then framework expects driver to be returned with
> '-EINVAL' and it is a legal error code in this case.
Do you agree on this?
I am ready with the other changes, will send out the patch to address your comments.

Regards
Sai Krishna