On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 10:28 AM, William Breathitt Gray <vilhelm.gray@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/08/2015 06:53 PM, Alexandre Courbot wrote: >> Apart from that this patch seems harmless and the repositioning of >> some constant declarations is also welcome. > > I'll create a separate patch to reposition the constant declarations. Where in > particular do you believe would be best for them to be positioned? I was talking about what you did here: @@ -109,24 +109,23 @@ static int __init idio_16_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) { struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; struct idio_16_gpio *idio16gpio; + const unsigned base = idio_16_base; + const unsigned extent = 8; + const char *const name = dev_name(dev); int err; - const unsigned BASE = idio_16_base; - const unsigned EXTENT = 8; - const char *const NAME = dev_name(dev); So this is already done - sorry for not having been clear. -- 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