Hi Wolfram, On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:09:08 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > If you still have a concern about the types used, please clarify and > > let me know what change you expect. > > Leave it. I think the fragile part is gpio_is_valid() but this is truly > outside the scope of this patch. > (...) > > Note that my patch doesn't introduce the gpio_request() calls, they > > were there before, so this decision is actually independent from my > > patch, and even if we decide to switch to using gpio_request_array(), > > I'd rather do it in a separate patch for clarity. > > I don't fully get it. Do you want to appl gpio_request() to this patch? > Otherwise, I'd take it as is. As I do not understand your question, I'd say you take my patch as is :) Thanks, -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
