On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Lothar Waßmann <LW@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Igor Grinberg writes:
>>
>>
>> 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?
>>
> Since ts->gpio_pendown is used as a GPIO number, the check with
> gpio_is_valid(), as suggested by Felipe Balbi, would be the most
> sensible thing to do here.
>
Yes,it seems gpio_is_valid() would be more sensible to use.
Will post a patch using gpio_is_valid() asap.
--
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
