> > 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)
Ack.
>
> >> 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?
I thought it to be more readable to have one-entry-one-OK-exit. But
actually I don't mind that much.
>
> >>
> >> @@ -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_... ;)
Yes, I meant that :)
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
