Mark Brown wrote at Thursday, December 01, 2011 5:28 PM: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 01:49:21PM -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: > > > - if (pdata && pdata->gpio_base) > > - wm8903->gpio_chip.base = pdata->gpio_base; > > - else > > - wm8903->gpio_chip.base = -1; > > + wm8903->gpio_chip.base = pdata->gpio_base; > > This will break existing users in counjuntion with the previous patch. > Previously if the user provided platform data but left gpio_base as zero > we'd use -1 and let gpiolib pick for us. Now instead the driver will > take that zero and pass it on to gpiolib, probably failing as the SoC > will have taken the low numbered GPIOs. Yes, I suppose that's true. However, I don't see it as a problem. Surely if the user provided pdata, it's their responsibility to fill it in correctly and completely. It seems a little random to take the pdata, and try to guess whether 0 means 0 or "I didn't set the value, so use the default". I think the same comment applies w.r.t to your comment on patch 2 (gpio_cfg); 0 is a perfectly legitimate value for the register; why should the driver double-guess that value and assume 0 means "don't touch the pin"? -- nvpublic -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
