[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <553099AF.3060108@imgtec.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 02:27:11 -0300
From: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...tec.com>
To: Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>,
"Ralf Baechle" <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
CC: <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
James Hartley <james.hartley@...tec.com>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
"Damien Horsley" <Damien.Horsley@...tec.com>,
Govindraj Raja <govindraj.raja@...tec.com>,
Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@...omium.org>,
"Paul Bolle" <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] pinctrl: Add Pistachio SoC pin control driver
Hi Andrew,
On 04/07/2015 04:44 PM, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
[..]
> +static int pistachio_gpio_register(struct pistachio_pinctrl *pctl)
> +{
> + struct device_node *node = pctl->dev->of_node;
> + struct pistachio_gpio_bank *bank;
> + unsigned int i;
> + int irq, ret = 0;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < pctl->nbanks; i++) {
> + char child_name[sizeof("gpioXX")];
> + struct device_node *child;
The first submission used for_each_child_of_node, and I can't find
any review comments explaining why you've changed it to a regular for
loop.
> +
> + snprintf(child_name, sizeof(child_name), "gpio%d", i);
This assumes the GPIO bank nodes are called gpio0, gpio1, ... and so on.
Do we really want to assume that?
Thanks,
--
Ezequiel
--
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