From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dmitry Torokhov Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Input: ads7846: use gpio_request_one to configure pendown_gpio Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 08:09:12 -0800 Message-ID: <20110204160912.GA11723@core.coreip.homeip.net> 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> <20110204141618.GE2070@m-desktop> <4D4C116D.4080408@compulab.co.il> <20110204151532.GF2070@m-desktop> <4D4C1D39.5080208@compulab.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:53871 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752992Ab1BDQJU (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Feb 2011 11:09:20 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4D4C1D39.5080208@compulab.co.il> Sender: linux-input-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org To: Igor Grinberg Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" , Wolfram Sang , balbi@ti.com, charu@ti.com, 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 Hi, On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 05:37:29PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote: > Hi, > > On 02/04/11 17:15, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 04:47:09PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote: > >> On 02/04/11 16:16, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote: > >>> 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: > >>>>>> 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. I kept 2 patches because they solve 2 different problems. > >> Because the changes introduced by the patches are from different nature. > >> As stated in the link above, one is a functional change (gpio setup change) > >> and second is fixing the imbalance in request - free calls. > >> The impact is not readability, but bad bisect-ability. > > ok. But the patch2(dmitry's patch) is doing more than what it is mentioned in > > patch description. It checks for validity of gpio, comment correction > > etc which needs to be updated in the patch description. I am pretty sure I expanded on the scope of the change in the body of the changelog. > > gpio validity is a part of request - free balance fix, comment change is > just a coding style fix - really minor. > > Personally, I think Dmitry's description of the patch is just fine, > but if you insist on making it somehow better, then suggest it to Dmitry. The both patches are already in my public branch so patch description is set. Thanks. -- Dmitry