[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121123121413.GB22268@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:14:13 +0000
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: linus.walleij@...aro.org, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
spear-devel@...t.st.com,
Vipul Kumar Samar <vipulkumar.samar@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: stmpe: Add DT support for stmpe gpio
> >> - stmpe_gpio->chip.base = pdata ? pdata->gpio_base : -1;
> >
> > Why have you deleted this?
> >
> >> +
> >> + if (pdata) {
> >> + stmpe_gpio->norequest_mask = pdata->norequest_mask;
> >> + stmpe_gpio->chip.base = pdata->gpio_base;
> >
> > Then added this?
> >
> >> + } else {
> >> + stmpe_gpio->chip.base = -1;
> >
> > And this?
>
> To group all non-DT assignments in a single if block, instead of two.
That assignment has nothing to do with DT.
> > Just leave the top line in and it saves you lots of complecations.
>
> Sorry, Couldn't get this one.
I'm saying, just leave it where it is.
> >> + if (np)
> >> + of_property_read_u32(np, "st,norequest-mask",
> >> + &pdata->norequest_mask);
> >
> > Can you explain to me what this does?
>
> You mean pdata->norequest_mask? It marks few gpios as unusable.
> Because these pads might be used by other blocks of stmpe.
I'm not sure if that should be set with DT or not.
Second opinion anyone?
--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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