On Wednesday, April 04, 2012 9:20 AM, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 04, 2012 1:41 AM, Rafal Prylowski wrote:
>> On 2012-04-03 19:41, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>> [not related to my patch, but ep93xx keypad]:
>> Isn't ep93xx_keypad_acquire_gpio be more correct if we apply the following patch:
>>
>> Index: linux-2.6/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/core.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/core.c
>> +++ linux-2.6/arch/arm/mach-ep93xx/core.c
>> @@ -734,7 +734,7 @@ int ep93xx_keypad_acquire_gpio(struct pl
>> fail_gpio_d:
>> gpio_free(EP93XX_GPIO_LINE_C(i));
>> fail_gpio_c:
>> - for ( ; i >= 0; --i) {
>> + for (--i; i >= 0; --i) {
>> gpio_free(EP93XX_GPIO_LINE_C(i));
>> gpio_free(EP93XX_GPIO_LINE_D(i));
>> }
>>
>> This way we don't double free EP93XX_GPIO_LINE_C(i), and don't free lines which were not
>> successfully acquired (I noticed this when writing my patch, which is based on
>> ep93xx_keypad_acquire/release_gpio).
>
> You are correct... ;-)
>
> Care to submit an actual patch?
Note, if/when the devm_gpio_request patch gets into the kernel tree we can use
that and get rid of the gpio_free's completely.
Sorry, I don't have a link to that patch...
Regards,
Hartley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
