On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Chang Rebecca Swee Fun > <rebecca.swee.fun.chang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Consolidating similar algorithms into common functions to make >> GPIO SCH simpler and manageable. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chang Rebecca Swee Fun <rebecca.swee.fun.chang@xxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> > > I have removed this patch from the tree. It breaks completely > in build and looks strange: > >> +static void sch_gpio_reg_set(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned gpio, unsigned reg, >> + int val) > > Takes struct gpio_chip * as argument... > >> +static int sch_gpio_direction_in(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned gpio_num) >> +{ >> + struct sch_gpio *sch = to_sch_gpio(gc); >> >> + spin_lock(&sch->lock); >> + sch_gpio_reg_set(sch, gpio_num, GIO, 1); > > Passes something else as argument. > >> static void sch_gpio_set(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned gpio_num, int val) >> { >> struct sch_gpio *sch = to_sch_gpio(gc); >> - u8 curr_vals; >> - unsigned short offset, bit; >> >> spin_lock(&sch->lock); >> - >> - offset = sch_gpio_offset(sch, gpio_num, GLV); >> - bit = sch_gpio_bit(sch, gpio_num); >> - >> - curr_vals = inb(sch->iobase + offset); >> - >> - if (val) >> - outb(curr_vals | (1 << bit), sch->iobase + offset); >> - else >> - outb((curr_vals & ~(1 << bit)), sch->iobase + offset); >> - >> + sch_gpio_reg_set(gc, gpio_num, GLV, val); > > Here it is correct. > >> @@ -139,18 +123,9 @@ static int sch_gpio_direction_out(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned gpio_num, >> int val) >> { >> struct sch_gpio *sch = to_sch_gpio(gc); >> - u8 curr_dirs; >> - unsigned short offset, bit; >> >> spin_lock(&sch->lock); >> - >> - offset = sch_gpio_offset(sch, gpio_num, GIO); >> - bit = sch_gpio_bit(sch, gpio_num); >> - >> - curr_dirs = inb(sch->iobase + offset); >> - if (curr_dirs & (1 << bit)) >> - outb(curr_dirs & ~(1 << bit), sch->iobase + offset); >> - >> + sch_gpio_reg_set(sch, gpio_num, GIO, 0); > > Wrong again. Etc. > > Makes me suspect that this patch is not tested at all, so dropped. IIRC at least one of the previous versions had the same issue and at that time I already pointed out that *compiling and testing* patches before sending them in the wild is common sense. Ironically the cover letter says "The patches has been verifed and tested working on Galileo Board". One may wonder... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html