Hi, On 02/04/11 17:15, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 04:47:09PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote: >> On 02/04/11 16:16, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 03:08:47PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: >>>> On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 07:02:50PM +0530, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 09:19:53AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>>>> Something like below should do I think. >>>>> Patch looks good but it applies only on top of previous patch: >>>>> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/529941/ >>>>> >>>>> Why to have two patches for this fix? >>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg45167.html >>> My point here is: >>> 1. The first patch only replaces gpio_request with gpio_request_one >>> 2. Rest of the things are handled in 2nd patch posted by dmitry >>> >>> What is harm in merging both the patches? I don't think it affects >>> readability. >> Because the changes introduced by the patches are from different nature. >> As stated in the link above, one is a functional change (gpio setup change) >> and second is fixing the imbalance in request - free calls. >> The impact is not readability, but bad bisect-ability. > ok. But the patch2(dmitry's patch) is doing more than what it is mentioned in > patch description. It checks for validity of gpio, comment correction > etc which needs to be updated in the patch description. gpio validity is a part of request - free balance fix, comment change is just a coding style fix - really minor. Personally, I think Dmitry's description of the patch is just fine, but if you insist on making it somehow better, then suggest it to Dmitry. -- Regards, Igor. -- 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
