[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <50D26652.1020205@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:13:54 +0900
From: Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>
Cc: linus.walleij@...aro.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kgene.kim@...sung.com,
kyungmin.park@...sung.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: samsung: remove exynos_gpio_cfg
Hi Grant,
On 12/20/2012 07:22 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 19:44:01 +0900, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com> wrote:
>> The exynos_gpio_cfg can be substituted to samsung_gpio_cfgs[8].
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@...sung.com>
> Hi Joonyoung,
>
> I need some help here. I don't understand what this patch is for or how
> it works. The commit text above doesn't give me enough information to
> evaluate the patch. What is the intent here? Why is samsung_gpio_cfgs[8]
> more correct than exynos_gpio_cfg?
First, i just wondered why samsung_gpio_cfgs[8] is used in the
exynos4_gpios_2[] even if exynos_gpio_cfg is exist and found
samsung_gpio_cfgs[8] does same thing with exynos_gpio_cfg. The
exynos_gpio_cfg is used only for Exynos SoCs so it is compiled by #if
defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS4) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS5).
I think one can be removed because they are duplicated codes and it is
better to decrease use of #if defined.
Thanks.
> g.
>
>
--
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