> > > This patch adds ST Keyscan driver to use the keypad hw a subset
> > > of ST boards provide. Specific board setup will be put in the
> > > given dt.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Giuseppe Condorelli <giuseppe.condorelli@xxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Gabriel Fernandez <gabriel.fernandez@xxxxxx>
> >
> > Are you sure these are in the correct order?
> >
> > What is the history of this commit?
> >
> > > ---
> > > .../devicetree/bindings/input/st-keypad.txt | 50 ++++
> >
> > This should be submitted as a seperate patch.
>
> Why do we have such requirement? To me it would make more sense to add
> binding documentation in the same commit as the code that uses these
> bindings.
I'm inclined to agree with you and that's actually how we used to do
it, but a decision was made by the DT guys at one of the Kernel
Summits to submit Documentation as a separate patch.
> [...]
>
> > > +
> > > + error = matrix_keypad_parse_of_params(dev, &pdata->num_out_pads,
> > > + &pdata->num_in_pads);
> > > + if (error) {
> > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to parse keypad params\n");
> > > + return error;
> >
> > Nit: It's pretty unusual to use this for a standard error handling
> > variable. Consider 'ret' or 'err' as a replacement.
>
> I like "error", in fact there are a lot of these in input. I use "error" for
> data that is only returned from error path and "retval" when the same
> variable is returned in both success and error paths.
If that's your preference then I'm cool with it too. Scrap my comment.
[...]
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
