[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikxfvHMHWjy=y14wwj3f+V-NfcjtUnQ=6QOh_2R@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 10:11:03 -0500
From: Vincent Palatin <vpalatin@...omium.org>
To: Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olofj@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: tps6586x: Invert GPIO and subdevices initialization
Hi Samuel,
On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 18:37, Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
[...]
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c b/drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c
>> index 627cf57..fdb16ed 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/tps6586x.c
>> @@ -517,19 +517,25 @@ static int __devinit tps6586x_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
>> }
>> }
>>
>> + tps6586x_gpio_init(tps6586x, pdata->gpio_base);
>> +
> Wouldn't it make sense to have tps6586x_gpio_init() return an int and check it
> before adding the subdevs then ?
Yes, probably. I will do a v2 which checks the result of the GPIO registration.
By the way, when "gpio_base" is not set, I will consider that the
developer doesn't want the TPS gpio support and gracefully continue
without the GPIO registration in order to keep the current behaviour.
Regards,
--
Vincent
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists