On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 01:25:01PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Thursday 16 October 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > + if (of_gc->chip)
> > + return of_gc->chip;
> > + return &of_gc->gc;
>
> presumably there's a reason not to
>
> of_gc->chip = &of_gc->gc;
Yes
On Thursday 16 October 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> + if (of_gc->chip)
> + return of_gc->chip;
> + return &of_gc->gc;
presumably there's a reason not to
of_gc->chip = &of_gc->gc;
when this gets set up, so this can always be a simple
return of_gc->chip
