[PATCH v3 2/2] Input: ads7846: use gpio_request_one to configure pendown_gpio

[G, Manjunath Kondaiah]

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:
> >>>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:54:05AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 08:51:46PM +0530, Sourav Poddar wrote:
> >>>>>> The ads7846 driver requests a gpio but does not currently
> >>>>>> configure it explicitly as an input. Use gpio_request_one
> >>>>>> to request and configure it at one shot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sourav Poddar <sourav.poddar at ti.com>
> >>>>>> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor at mail.ru>
> >>>>> Will apply this one, the other one is a bit messy IMO, will have to
> >>>>> think about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>> 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.

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.

-Manjunath