[PATCH v3 1/2] ads7846: fix gpio free without requesting

[Wolfram Sang]

> > I wonder if it makes sense to merge both patches under the name of "fix
> > gpio-handling" or similar. Not sure, though...
> 
> I'd rather not do that, because this patch fixes the request/free problem
> and the second is changing the functionality (e.g. configures the gpio as input)

Ack.

> 
> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
> >> index 14ea54b..ce5baee 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/input/touchscreen/ads7846.c
> >> @@ -952,6 +952,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_setup_pendown(struct spi_device *spi, struct ads784
> >>  
> >>  	if (pdata->get_pendown_state) {
> >>  		ts->get_pendown_state = pdata->get_pendown_state;
> >> +		ts->gpio_pendown = -EINVAL;
> >>  		return 0;
> >>  	}
> > Will probably work, but maybe it is better to reorganize the code to
> > just have one success-exit-point. That would be mean adding an else
> > branch to this if-block.
> 
> This is something that can be done, though I fear the code readability
> will suffer. Is it worth?

I thought it to be more readable to have one-entry-one-OK-exit. But
actually I don't mind that much.

> 
> >>  
> >> @@ -1353,7 +1354,7 @@ static int __devinit ads7846_probe(struct spi_device *spi)
> >>   err_put_regulator:
> >>  	regulator_put(ts->reg);
> >>   err_free_gpio:
> >> -	if (ts->gpio_pendown != -1)
> >> +	if (gpio_is_valid(ts->gpio_pendown))
> > You could do the same in the remove-path.
> 
> You mean, _should_... ;)

Yes, I meant that :)

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110203/5fbdbf31/attachment.sig>