On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Igor Grinberg <grinberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 02/03/11 13:00, Poddar, Sourav wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Igor Grinberg <grinberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> if (pdata->get_pendown_state) {
>>> ts->get_pendown_state = pdata->get_pendown_state;
>>> ts->gpio_pendown = -1;
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>> Yes we can do so .I initialise it at a place where other variables
>> where initialised.
>>
>>>> Also, why don't we use -EINVAL for the invalid gpio number instead of -1 constant?
>>>>
>> I used -1 because conditional check done in probe ads7846_probe function
>> used this value.
>>
>> err_free_gpio:
>> if (ts->gpio_pendown != -1)
>> gpio_free(ts->gpio_pendown);
>>
>
> Well I understand that and that's why in my proposal I used -1 also, but
> I thought we can make it even better if we switch to -EINVAL
> (though wanted to check if there are any reasonable objections)
> and while you are at this, may be you are willing also to submit a patch for this?
I guess instead of -EINVAL, -EIO should be initialized to
ts->gpio_pendown since that
would be more appropriate for gpio and as Balbi suggested it would
be better to use
gpio_is_valid() for checking this error condition.
-Kishon
>
> --
> Regards,
> Igor.
>
>
--
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
