From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from 50.23.254.54-static.reverse.softlayer.com ([50.23.254.54]:45819 "EHLO softlayer.compulab.co.il" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932161Ab1EWRDz (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 May 2011 13:03:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4DDA9372.5060200@compulab.co.il> Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:03:46 +0300 From: Igor Grinberg MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Laurent Pinchart CC: javier Martin , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, beagleboard@googlegroups.com, carlighting@yahoo.co.nz, g.liakhovetski@gmx.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] OMAP3BEAGLE: Add support for mt9p031 sensor driver. References: <1305899272-31839-1-git-send-email-javier.martin@vista-silicon.com> <4DD9146B.2050408@compulab.co.il> <201105230947.15775.laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> In-Reply-To: <201105230947.15775.laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: Sender: On 05/23/11 10:47, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Javier, > > On Monday 23 May 2011 09:25:01 javier Martin wrote: >> On 22 May 2011 15:49, Igor Grinberg wrote: > [snip] > >>>> @@ -309,6 +357,15 @@ static int beagle_twl_gpio_setup(struct device >>>> *dev, pr_err("%s: unable to configure EHCI_nOC\n", __func__); } >>>> >>>> + if (omap3_beagle_get_rev() == OMAP3BEAGLE_BOARD_XM) { >>>> + /* >>>> + * Power on camera interface - only on pre-production, not >>>> + * needed on production boards >>>> + */ >>>> + gpio_request(gpio + 2, "CAM_EN"); >>>> + gpio_direction_output(gpio + 2, 1); >>> Why not gpio_request_one()? >> Just to follow the same approach as in the rest of the code. >> Maybe a further patch could change all "gpio_request()" uses to >> "gpio_request_one()". > Please do it the other way around. Replace calls to gpio_request() + > gpio_direction_output() with a call to gpio_request_one(), and then modify > this patch to use gpio_request_one(). Well, this is done already, you need to follow Tony's linux-next branch... So, just changing this patch would do... Also, good practice is to base patches on maintainer's appropriate branch, so it would be easier to apply. -- Regards, Igor.