--------sinipped---- >>>>> bank->>gpio_status |= 1 << offset; >>>> Why to touch gpio_status if not used (for other than 34xx/24xx/44xx >> cases)? >>>either the gpio_status should be under a #ifdef for 34xx when defining >>>or it should be usable by all. what it does now is do both. >> gpio_status is not used under #ifdef for 34xx. It is used only with >> cpu_is_omap >> (34xx/24xx/44xx). Should we use both #ifdef and cpu_is_omap together? Why? >> But I don't see that approach in LO. For eg., usage of dbck_enable_mask is >> used only with cpu_is_omap and is not declared under #ifdef. > >Please see [1] saved_datain is an example of why I think gpio.c could go thru a cleanup ;) already in #ifdef in line 1908, in line 1925, we add a new #ifdef under a #ifdef :D.. err... > >Ok this piece of code is not perfect.. Looking onto lines 1908 & 1925, I accept that the gpio.c code is not perfect. But they are nothing to do with my patch. I guess this is the same at many places in most of the drivers and someone has to take up the job of cleaning up. >Regards, >Nishanth Menon >.[1] http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tmlind/linux-omap-2.6.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/plat-omap/gpio.c;h=487bea7b5605fe366064d792d0c9cc8aed1eac63;hb=0bbf5337f2f2957775051a3caf60b66d3306c815#l174 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
