[PATCH 00/20] iPAQ h3100/h3600 work for 2.6.33

[linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)]

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 08:30:48PM +0300, Dmitry Artamonow wrote:
> On 18:36 Sun 25 Oct     , Dmitry Artamonow wrote:
> > On 22:10 Sat 24 Oct     , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > 
> > > That's fine, and the patches to me at least look fine as well.  The only
> > > thing which gives me slight concern is the:
> > > 
> > > 	if (!gpio_request()) {
> > > 		gpio_direction_output();
> > > 		gpio_free();
> > > 	}
> > > 
> > > stuff, but I guess you can't get around that easily, especially if those
> > > GPIOs only become available at some time later.  It is something that
> > > eventually needs to be addressed though - consider that this can lead
> > > to unexpected (and silent) failures if the GPIOs aren't available when
> > > another driver initializes, and can't (eg) turn on the IrDA tranceiver.
> > 
> > Yes, you right here about silent failures. I think they could be made less
> > silent by inserting some pr_err()-s , though it would bloat code a
> > bit (I'd like to see request_gpio() itself emitting error message,
> > but currectly it does that only when CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO is set).
> > Ok, here's incremental patch adding pr_err-s in attachment - if you're
> > OK with it I will roll it into [09/20] and rebase all following patches.
> > 
> > Also perhaps it's a good idea to always built-in htc-egpio driver
> > (by adding "select HTC_EGPIO" to h3100/h3600 Kconfig options) - that should
> > decrease probability of gpio_request failures a lot. Patch also
> > attached.
> 
> So, Russell, what's your opinion on these proposed additional changes?
> (btw, I found some minor flaws in "emit messages on failed gpio_request"
> patch, new version attached here).
> 
> I'm thinking about submitting full patchset into you patchsystem soon,
> but I'd like to know that everything is ok before doing that.

Well, I'm not sure what Thomas Kunze is doing, I've not heard from him in
a while.

How do your patches affect his?  Are your patches a superset of Thomas's
patches?  If not, should Thomas's be merged first?