From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Input: ads7846: use gpio_request_one to configure pendown_gpio Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 19:46:18 +0530 Message-ID: <20110204141618.GE2070@m-desktop> References: <1296746506-12221-1-git-send-email-sourav.poddar@ti.com> <20110203165405.GB12802@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20110203171953.GA13997@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20110204133250.GB2070@m-desktop> <20110204140847.GA3178@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com ([74.125.149.69]:37970 "EHLO na3sys009aog102.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751942Ab1BDORV (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Feb 2011 09:17:21 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110204140847.GA3178@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" , Dmitry Torokhov , balbi@ti.com, charu@ti.com, grinberg@compulab.co.il, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Sourav Poddar , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, LW@karo-electronics.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, gadiyar@ti.com On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 03:08:47PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 07:02:50PM +0530, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 09:19:53AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:54:05AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:51:46PM +0530, Sourav Poddar wrote: > > > > > The ads7846 driver requests a gpio but does not currently > > > > > configure it explicitly as an input. Use gpio_request_one > > > > > to request and configure it at one shot. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sourav Poddar > > > > > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov > > > > > > > > Will apply this one, the other one is a bit messy IMO, will have to > > > > think about it. > > > > > > > > > > Something like below should do I think. > > Patch looks good but it applies only on top of previous patch: > > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/529941/ > > > > Why to have two patches for this fix? > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg45167.html My point here is: 1. The first patch only replaces gpio_request with gpio_request_one 2. Rest of the things are handled in 2nd patch posted by dmitry What is harm in merging both the patches? I don't think it affects readability. -Manjunath