Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: use signed integer for parsing GPIO numbers

2020-11-26 Thread Bongsu Jeon
On 11/27/20, Bongsu Jeon wrote: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 2:06 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 12:33:37AM +0900, bongsu.je...@gmail.com wrote: >> > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski >> > >> > GPIOs - as returned by of_get_named_gpio() and used by the gpiolib - >> > are >> >

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: use signed integer for parsing GPIO numbers

2020-11-26 Thread Bongsu Jeon
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 2:06 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 12:33:37AM +0900, bongsu.je...@gmail.com wrote: > > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > > > GPIOs - as returned by of_get_named_gpio() and used by the gpiolib - are > > signed integers, where negative number indicate

Re: [PATCH net-next 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: use signed integer for parsing GPIO numbers

2020-11-26 Thread Krzysztof Kozlowski
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 12:33:37AM +0900, bongsu.je...@gmail.com wrote: > From: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > GPIOs - as returned by of_get_named_gpio() and used by the gpiolib - are > signed integers, where negative number indicates error. The return > value of of_get_named_gpio() should not be assig

[PATCH net-next 1/3] nfc: s3fwrn5: use signed integer for parsing GPIO numbers

2020-11-26 Thread bongsu . jeon2
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski GPIOs - as returned by of_get_named_gpio() and used by the gpiolib - are signed integers, where negative number indicates error. The return value of of_get_named_gpio() should not be assigned to an unsigned int because in case of !CONFIG_GPIOLIB such number would be a v