Hi Chris,
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 07:45:06PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote:
> This patch fixes two bugs in handling of the RMI4 attention line GPIO.
>
> 1) in enable_sensor(), make sure the attn_gpio is defined before attempting to
> get its value.
>
> 2) in rmi_driver_probe(), declare the name of the attn_gpio, then
> request the attn_gpio before attempting to export it. As an added bonus,
> the code relating to the export is tidied up.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny <cheiny@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> This patch implements changes to the synaptics-rmi4 branch of
> Dmitry's input tree. The base for the patch is commit
> e0c5aec5e6144ae8391d164e2dc659f8ef2b2ba7.
You do not have to mention base commit (and update it all the time),
that's way too much work. If you are the one posting patches I should
be able to figure out how to apply them.
>
> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c
> index a30c7d3..030e8d5 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c
> @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static int enable_sensor(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev)
>
> data->enabled = true;
>
> - if (!pdata->level_triggered &&
> + if (pdata->attn_gpio && !pdata->level_triggered &&
> gpio_get_value(pdata->attn_gpio) == pdata->attn_polarity)
> retval = process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev);
>
> @@ -807,6 +807,9 @@ static int rmi_driver_remove(struct device *dev)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +
> +static const char *GPIO_LABEL = "attn";
> +
This wastes 4 or 8 bytes I believe. If you want to do that then you
should say:
static const char GPIO_LABEL[] = "attn";
> static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev)
> {
> struct rmi_driver *rmi_driver;
> @@ -959,20 +962,24 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev)
> }
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RMI4_DEV) && pdata->attn_gpio) {
> - retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false);
> - if (retval) {
> - dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN gpio!\n");
> - retval = 0;
> - } else {
> - retval = gpio_export_link(dev,
> - "attn", pdata->attn_gpio);
> - if (retval) {
> - dev_warn(dev,
> - "WARNING: Failed to symlink ATTN gpio!\n");
> - retval = 0;
> - } else {
> - dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.",
> - pdata->attn_gpio);
> + retval = gpio_request(pdata->attn_gpio, GPIO_LABEL);
> + if (retval)
> + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to request ATTN gpio %d, code: %d.\n",
> + pdata->attn_gpio, retval);
> + else {
The rule is: if one branch needs {} then they both should use them:
if (condition) {
statement;
} else {
statement;
...
statement;
}
> + retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false);
> + if (retval)
> + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN %d, code: %d.\n",
> + pdata->attn_gpio, retval);
> + else {
> + retval = gpio_export_link(dev, "attn",
Why are we using constant when we request gpio but not here?
> + pdata->attn_gpio);
> + if (retval)
> + dev_warn(dev,
> + "WARNING: Failed to symlink ATTN gpio!\n");
> + else
> + dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.",
> + pdata->attn_gpio);
> }
> }
> }
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
--
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
