On Fri, 23 Nov 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 23 November 2012 17:44, Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote: > > I'm saying, just leave it where it is. > > So you are suggesting this code: > > stmpe_gpio->chip.base = pdata ? pdata->gpio_base : -1; > > if (pdata) > stmpe_gpio->norequest_mask = pdata->norequest_mask; > else if (np) > of_property_read_u32(np, "st,norequest-mask", > &pdata->norequest_mask); > > Right? Then yes i can do it.
It would be better if you'd sent it as a diff, but yes, leave the top line as it is and just add the norequest-mask stuff (if it's required). > >> >> + if (np) > >> >> + of_property_read_u32(np, "st,norequest-mask", > >> >> + &pdata->norequest_mask); > >> > > >> > Can you explain to me what this does? > >> > >> You mean pdata->norequest_mask? It marks few gpios as unusable. > >> Because these pads might be used by other blocks of stmpe. > > > > I'm not sure if that should be set with DT or not. > > > > Second opinion anyone? > > Why i kept it in DT is because it is board dependent and there is no better > way of communicating this from board to driver. I can't comment, as I really don't know. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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/
