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

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

@@ -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/  |