On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 01:35, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 10:36:42AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_GPIOLIB
>> +int ad7879_gpio_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned gpio)
>> {
>
> Sparse recommends making this static and it seems like a good idea. The
> same goes for the 3 new fucntions below.
yep
>> +static inline int ad7879_gpio_add(struct device *dev)
>
> Why inline? Let's compiler decide, it's certainly not a hot path.
ad7879_gpio_remove needed to be inlined because it's called from both
the probe (__devinit) and the remove (__devexit) functions. might
able to write a smaller version though for the probe function to avoid
this.
ad7879_gpio_add is fine to remove the "inline" as long as "__devinit" is added.
>> +{
>> + struct ad7879 *ts = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> + struct ad7879_platform_data *pdata = dev->platform_data;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + if (pdata->gpio_export) {
>> + ts->gc.direction_input = ad7879_gpio_direction_input;
>> + ts->gc.direction_output = ad7879_gpio_direction_output;
>> + ts->gc.get = ad7879_gpio_get_value;
>> + ts->gc.set = ad7879_gpio_set_value;
>> + ts->gc.can_sleep = 1;
>> + ts->gc.base = pdata->gpio_base;
>> + ts->gc.ngpio = 1;
>> + ts->gc.label = "AD7879-GPIO";
>> + ts->gc.owner = THIS_MODULE;
>> + ts->gc.dev = dev;
>> +
>> + ret = gpiochip_add(&ts->gc);
>> + if (ret)
>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to register gpio %d\n",
>> + ts->gc.base);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int ad7879_gpio_remove(struct device *dev)
>
> There is no chance we can handle errors returned by this function so I'd
> make it 'void'.
right
-mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
