From: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il>
To: "Poddar, Sourav" <sourav.poddar@ti.com>
Cc: "G, Manjunath Kondaiah" <manjugk@ti.com>,
Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
balbi@ti.com, charu@ti.com, linux-input@vger.kernel.org,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, LW@karo-electronics.de,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, gadiyar@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] Input: ads7846: use gpio_request_one to configure pendown_gpio
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2011 09:31:28 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D4E4E50.4030709@compulab.co.il> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimQS_dNcaeTqqR=7vqFcGi-CtmH_ynrPyt4p1uK@mail.gmail.com>
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/04/11 17:11, Poddar, Sourav wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> 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:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:54:05AM -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.
>>>> 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.
>>> Dmitry's patch fixes both the problems(request/free and direction)
>>> in a single patch itself.Now there is no need of merging any patches.
>>> Just that Dmitry's patch need to be rebased over the top of HEAD. (Currently,
>>> its on top of my patch series).
>> Well, here you have missed the point of direction:
>> ...
>>
>> + err = gpio_request_one(pdata->gpio_pendown, GPIOF_DIR_IN,
>> + "ads7846_pendown");
>>
>> ...
>>
>> - err = gpio_request_one(pdata->gpio_pendown, GPIOF_DIR_IN,
>> - "ads7846_pendown");
>> ...
>>
>>
>> It does not deal with direction, but only with request - free balance.
>> The gpio direction is fixed by your patch.
>>
> gpio_request_one is a different API which calls gpio_direction_input
> for configuring the direction.
That is exactly the point :)
Your patch has added the gpio_request_one() and thus changed the gpio direction.
This patch only moves it around.
--
Regards,
Igor.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-06 7:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-03 15:21 [PATCH v3 2/2] Input: ads7846: use gpio_request_one to configure pendown_gpio Sourav Poddar
2011-02-03 16:54 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-03 17:19 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-03 22:12 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-02-04 8:05 ` Varadarajan, Charulatha
2011-02-04 12:59 ` Poddar, Sourav
2011-02-04 13:32 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-02-04 13:37 ` Kishore Kadiyala
2011-02-04 13:41 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-02-04 14:08 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-02-04 14:16 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-02-04 14:47 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-02-04 15:11 ` Poddar, Sourav
2011-02-04 15:30 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-02-05 6:59 ` Poddar, Sourav
2011-02-06 7:31 ` Igor Grinberg [this message]
2011-02-04 15:15 ` G, Manjunath Kondaiah
2011-02-04 15:37 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-02-04 16:09 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2011-02-04 14:54 ` Wolfram Sang
2011-02-04 15:13 ` Igor Grinberg
2011-02-03 17:05 ` Wolfram Sang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D4E4E50.4030709@compulab.co.il \
--to=grinberg@compulab.co.il \
--cc=LW@karo-electronics.de \
--cc=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=charu@ti.com \
--cc=dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com \
--cc=gadiyar@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-input@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=manjugk@ti.com \
--cc=sourav.poddar@ti.com \
--cc=w.sang@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).