Hi,

On 02/04/11 17:15, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote:

On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 04:47:09PM +0200, Igor Grinberg wrote:

quoted

On 02/04/11 16:16, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 03:08:47PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 07:02:50PM +0530, G, Manjunath Kondaiah wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 09:19:53AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:

quoted

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.

gpio validity is a part of request - free balance fix, comment change is
just a coding style fix - really minor.

Personally, I think Dmitry's description of the patch is just fine,
but if you insist on making it somehow better, then suggest it to Dmitry.


-- 
Regards,
Igor.