> -----Original Message----- > From: Linus Walleij [mailto:linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 7:44 PM > To: Ashish Jangam; Mark Brown > Cc: Grant Likely; Samuel Ortiz; linux-input@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Dajun > Chen > Subject: Re: [Patch v1 4/7] DA9055 GPIO driver > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Ashish Jangam > <ashish.jangam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > This is the GPIO patch for the DA9055 PMIC. This patch has got > > dependency on the DA9055 MFD core. > > > > This patch is functionally tested on SMDK6410 board. > > > > Signed-off-by: David Dajun Chen <dchen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Ashish Jangam <ashish.jangam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > This looks OK > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > > But I want Marks comment on this, for example: > > > +static int da9055_gpio_get(struct gpio_chip *gc, unsigned offset) > > +{ > > + struct da9055_gpio *gpio = to_da9055_gpio(gc); > > + int gpio_direction = 0; > > + int ret; > > + > > + /* Get GPIO direction */ > > + ret = da9055_reg_read(gpio->da9055, (offset >> 1) + > DA9055_REG_GPIO0_1); > > + if (ret < 0) > > + return ret; > > So unique functions to read/write registers (as I'm used to). > > But the parent driver is using regmap, sand you seem not to use the > struct da9055 > for anything else than passing reads/writes, so isn't it simpler to just > pass > the struct regmap * and use update_bits etc directly and remove a layer of > indirection? > > I'm very uncertain but Mark will know the proper design pattern. > As Mark was fine with this then will it be possible to upstream this patch? > Yours, > Linus Walleij -- 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
