From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Igor Grinberg Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/2] ads7846: OMAP3: Removal of warnings backtrace in bootup Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 13:12:32 +0200 Message-ID: <4D4A8DA0.1010806@compulab.co.il> References: <1296726514-32146-1-git-send-email-sourav.poddar@ti.com> <4D4A7F13.8080502@compulab.co.il> <4D4A80D3.2060407@compulab.co.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Poddar, Sourav" Cc: dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, balbi@ti.com, Kishon Vijay Abraham I , charu@ti.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, gadiyar@ti.com List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On 02/03/11 13:00, Poddar, Sourav wrote: > On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Igor Grinberg wrote: >> if (pdata->get_pendown_state) { >> ts->get_pendown_state = pdata->get_pendown_state; >> ts->gpio_pendown = -1; >> return 0; >> } > Yes we can do so .I initialise it at a place where other variables > where initialised. > >>> Also, why don't we use -EINVAL for the invalid gpio number instead of -1 constant? >>> > I used -1 because conditional check done in probe ads7846_probe function > used this value. > > err_free_gpio: > if (ts->gpio_pendown != -1) > gpio_free(ts->gpio_pendown); > Well I understand that and that's why in my proposal I used -1 also, but I thought we can make it even better if we switch to -EINVAL (though wanted to check if there are any reasonable objections) and while you are at this, may be you are willing also to submit a patch for this? -- Regards, Igor.