[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <74CDBE0F657A3D45AFBB94109FB122FF173E1B48D0@HQMAIL01.nvidia.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:37:43 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>
To: Marek Belisko <marek.belisko@...n-nandra.com>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC: "grant.likely@...retlab.ca" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/2] pinmux: Remove double pin validity check.
Belisko Marek wrote at Wednesday, October 26, 2011 2:57 PM:
> Function pin_is_valid just call pin_desc_get which is in pin_request
> call some line below. Remove pin_is_valid() check.
...
> @@ -112,16 +112,6 @@ static int pin_request(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>
> dev_dbg(&pctldev->dev, "request pin %d for %s\n", pin, function);
>
> - if (!pin_is_valid(pctldev, pin)) {
> - dev_err(&pctldev->dev, "pin is invalid\n");
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
So that makes sense.
> -
> - if (!function) {
> - dev_err(&pctldev->dev, "no function name given\n");
> - return -EINVAL;
> - }
But I don't think you want to remove that? Oh actually, perhaps removing
that /is/ valid, since it's an internal function and can't be called with
a NULL function parameter. But, you should mention why in the changelog
so it doesn't look like a mistake.
--
nvpublic
--
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