Hi,
On 02/03/11 13:28, ABRAHAM, KISHON VIJAY wrote:
> 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
Well, the common practice is to use -EINVAL for gpio _numbers_,
I have not seen anyone using -EIO for this.
> and as Balbi suggested it would
> be better to use
> gpio_is_valid() for checking this error condition.
Of course gpio_is_valid() should be used for testing the gpio.
The -EINVAL in turn should be used for _setting_ the invalid value for that gpio.
My suggestion for -EINVAL is related to the initialization:
if (pdata->get_pendown_state) {
ts->get_pendown_state = pdata->get_pendown_state;
ts->gpio_pendown = -EINVAL;
return 0;
}
--
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
