[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5306E599.7020605@wwwdotorg.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 22:35:21 -0700
From: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>
CC: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@...ux.intel.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Rhyland Klein <rklein@...dia.com>,
linux-wireless <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] net: rfkill: gpio: remove gpio names
On 02/20/2014 06:55 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 12:38 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org> wrote:
>> On 02/20/2014 05:51 AM, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
>>> There is no use for them in this driver. This will fix a
>>> static checker warning..
>>
>> Didn't you remove the use:
>>
>> - gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, rfkill->reset_name, 0);
>> + gpio = devm_gpiod_get_index(&pdev->dev, NULL, 0);
>>
>> doesn't that parameter get put into the sysfs GPIO debug file, so people
>> can see which GPIOs are used for what?
>
> That's correct. However using con_id to pass this results in different
> behavior across DT and ACPI. A better way is to export the labeling
> function so consumers can set meaningful labels themselves.
But this code is the consumer of those GPIOs. IF the parameter to
devm_gpiod_get_index() isn't intended to be used, why does it exist?
--
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