Hi,
On 02/03/11 17:47, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:51:26PM +0530, Sourav Poddar wrote:
>> gpio_pendown in ads7846_probe is not getting initalized (defaulted to 0)
>> resulting in gpio_free being called without a gpio_request. This
>> results in the following backtrace in bootup (at least on an OMAP3430 SDP).
> I wonder if it makes sense to merge both patches under the name of "fix
> gpio-handling" or similar. Not sure, though...
I'd rather not do that, because this patch fixes the request/free problem
and the second is changing the functionality (e.g. configures the gpio as input)
>> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
>> index 14ea54b..ce5baee 100644
>> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
>> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
>> @@ -952,6 +952,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_setup_pendown(struct spi_device *spi, struct ads784
>>
>> if (pdata->get_pendown_state) {
>> ts->get_pendown_state = pdata->get_pendown_state;
>> + ts->gpio_pendown = -EINVAL;
>> return 0;
>> }
> Will probably work, but maybe it is better to reorganize the code to
> just have one success-exit-point. That would be mean adding an else
> branch to this if-block.
This is something that can be done, though I fear the code readability
will suffer. Is it worth?
>>
>> @@ -1353,7 +1354,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
>> err_put_regulator:
>> regulator_put(ts->reg);
>> err_free_gpio:
>> - if (ts->gpio_pendown != -1)
>> + if (gpio_is_valid(ts->gpio_pendown))
> You could do the same in the remove-path.
You mean, _should_... ;)
Otherwise, the patch is not complete.
--
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
