2017-12-20 16:00 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2017-12-20 11:21 GMT+01:00 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 10:26 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> AT24 EEPROMs have a write-protect pin, which - when pulled high - >>>> inhibits writes to the upper quadrant of memory (although it has been >>>> observed that on some chips it disables writing to the entire memory >>>> range). >>>> >>>> On some boards, this pin is connected to a GPIO and pulled high by >>>> default, which forces the user to manually change its state before >>>> writing. On linux this means that we either need to hog the line all >>>> the time, or set the GPIO value before writing from outside of the >>>> at24 driver. >>>> >>>> This series adds support for the write-protect pin split into two >>>> parts. The first patch extends the relevant binding document, while >>>> the second modifies the at24 code to pull the write-protect GPIO >>>> low (if present) during write operations. >>>> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> A one totally minor nit: if it possible now to have one line where >>> devm_gpiod_get_optional() is called? >>> You may ignore this nit anyway. >>> >> >> Hi Andy, >> >> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here. I do use >> devm_gpiod_get_optional() in patch 2/2. > > I meant to do something like > ...->wp_gpio = devm_gpiod_get_optional(...); > if (IS_ERR(...)) > return ...; > > So, note that the first is occupied only one line. > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko Oh, now I get it. It doesn't fit into 80 characters if we use &client->dev as the first argument, but I see that client->dev is used extensively in probe() so we could probably use a separate struct device *dev helper variable for that. I'll note it for future refactoring that will happen soon. I prefer that this patch stays as it is though. Thanks, Bartosz
