Re: [PATCH 1/2] gpiolib: improve overlap check of range of gpio

[Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, Nov 14, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Bamvor Zhang Jian
<bamvor.zhangjian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Here we are also below the previous chip, so above the current
>> iterator and below the previous one so we found a "hole".
>> Insert a comment that "we found a hole in the GPIO chip bases".
>
> Yes, we found a valid range between _chip_prev and chip. Is it more clear
> if we use ranges(means [base,base+ngpio]) instead of bases?

Maybe, maybe both. Suggest something that makes sense to you
in your updated patch.

>> And here we are above the last chip in the list.
>> Insert a comment about that too.
>> "We are beyond the last chip in the list".
>
> Yeap. I am sorry for the variable naming and comments. I will update them
> in the next patch.

The naming is not your fault, there was a bad precedent.

> Except for the above comment, any comments or suggestions
> for the logic?

No it makes sense.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
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