On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Chandrabhanu Mahapatra
<cmahapa...@ti.com> wrote:
> From: Leed Aguilar <leed.agui...@ti.com>
>
> Here, the implementation of registration of requested IRQs has been corrected
> with appropiate api's. The gpio number is requested through gpio_request_one()
> API and conversion of the gpio to irq is done using the gpio_to_irq() API.
>
> Change-Id: I964145e2a280d6553ea2c05ea8049810a1983930
Delete that.
> Signed-off-by: Leed Aguilar <leed.agui...@ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chandrabhanu Mahapatra <cmahapa...@ti.com>
> ---
> drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
> index c3ca7d8..27486da 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pca953x.c
> @@ -509,7 +509,13 @@ static int pca953x_irq_setup(struct pca953x_chip *chip,
> #endif
> }
>
> - ret = request_threaded_irq(client->irq,
> + ret = gpio_request_one(client->irq, GPIOF_IN, "pca953x");
Not that it's really related to this one patch, but why is a GPIO number named
"irq" in client->irq??
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(&client->dev, "gpio request failure\n");
> + goto out_failed;
> + }
> +
> + ret = request_threaded_irq(gpio_to_irq(client->irq),
It gets ever more confused as you're seemingly converting an IRQ to
an IRQ. Can we rename this variable in a separate patch?
Apart from this it looks good, but do I dare apply it without applying
3/4 (that needs ACK:ing)?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
