Re: [PATCH v5 3/3] omap3: beaglexm: fix power on of DVI
STALE5742d
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Date: 2011-01-12 00:15:09
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel
* Nishanth Menon [off-list ref] [110111 15:54]:
Tony Lindgren had written, on 01/11/2011 05:23 PM, the following: [..]quoted
quoted
- - gpio_request(gpio + 1, "EHCI_nOC"); - gpio_direction_input(gpio + 1); + if (omap3_beagle_get_rev() != OMAP3BEAGLE_BOARD_XM) { + gpio_request(gpio + 1, "EHCI_nOC"); + gpio_direction_input(gpio + 1); + }The return value for gpio_request must be checked.Ack. we can go down two paths: a) I can redo this patch as in v6.patch (attached)
Yes let's do that, one comment below though..
OR b) we take this patch and do another one cleaning the function up - gpio-check.patch
That can be done later.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ if (omap3_beagle_get_rev() == OMAP3BEAGLE_BOARD_XM) { + r = gpio_request(gpio + 1, "nDVI_PWR_EN"); + if (!r) { + r = gpio_direction_output(gpio + 1, 0); + if (r) + gpio_free(gpio + 1); + } + if (r) + pr_err("%s: unable to configure nDVI_PWR_EN\n", + __func__); + r = gpio_request(gpio + 2, "DVI_LDO_EN"); + if (!r) { + r = gpio_direction_output(gpio + 2, 1); + if (r) + gpio_free(gpio + 1); + } + if (r) + pr_err("%s: unable to configure DVI_LDO_EN\n", + __func__); + } +
Should the second gpio_free be gpio + 2 instead of gpio + 1? Tony